OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Hastings Tramways Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Rugby Gas Bill [Lords,]

Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords.]

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

Wrexham District Tramways Bill (by Order),

Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ALLIED COMMISSION.

Lieut.-Colonel JOHN WARD: 1
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether it is proposed to select as members of or attached to the Allied Investigation Commission about to proceed to Russia, Russian subjects who have not been forced to accept Bolshevik rule balanced by a number of Russian subjects favourable to Soviet administration, or whether it is proposed to select the representatives upon the Commission from Allied nominees exclusively; if so, will a knowledge of the Russian language be made a condition of membership;
(2) Whether any steps have been taken, or any arrangement made with the Bolshevik Government, to secure protection for any Russian subject who may wish to give evidence to the Allied Commission which is about to proceed to Soviet Russia for the purpose of conducting the investigation as to the condition of affairs in Russia for the Allied Council; if any arrangement has been made, how do the Allies expect to secure any evidence from Russians resident in the districts controlled by the Soviet power other than that favourable to the Bolshevik administration;
(3) Whether, in choosing interpreters for the Allied Soviet Commission, care will be taken to exclude Russian subjects either favourable or opposed to Bolshevik rule, relying entirely upon competent Allied linguists for translating documents and interpreting oral or other evidence?

Mr. WATERSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Allied Commission to Russia has been appointed, and, if so, who are they?

The UNDER - SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harmsworth): As stated by the Lord Privy Seal in answer to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for East Leyton on March 17th, the Commission to visit Russia is being organised, not by the Supreme Council, but by the Council of the League of Nations, who have charge of all the arrangements connected with it.
I have caused enquiries to be made and I am informed that the Council are not yet in a position to announce the names of the members of the Commission or the date of its departure for Russia.

Sir J. D. REES: Would this not be a good opportunity to make use of the Russian interpreters who have been paid money to qualify and whose services are never used? Is there a list of them at the Foreign Office?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: If my hon. Friend desires it, I will represent his view to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: One part of my question has not been answered, namely, what arrangements, if any, would be made for the safety of those who offer to give evidence that may be against the Soviet Government.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Member will see from the answer that the whole matter is in the hands of the League of Nations. If the hon. and gallant Members desires me to make any representation to the Secretary-General, I shall be happy to do so.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that, although we have a very distinguished representative on the Council of the League of Nations, we in this House have no sort of control over the policy entered into by our representative in our name? Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to answer these questions, and inform us as to the policy which our representative, speaking for this Government at any rate, is putting forward before the Council of the League? It is an important constitutional point.

Mr. SPEAKER: If it is an important constitutional point, notice should be given of the question.

KUBAN COSSACKS.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the declaration made by General Holman in a manifesto to the Kuban Cossacks; whether General Holman is chief of the military mission with General Denikin; and whether the manifesto, which purported to be a message from His Gracious Majesty the King, was approved in full by His Majesty's Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

ARMENIAN MASSACRES, CILICIA.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, with reference to the so-called Armenian massacres in Cilicia, that district was garrisoned partly by coloured and partly by Armenian troops in the pay of Franco; whether the Armenians of the Légion d'Orient killed several Turks during the occupation; and whether the presence of these units alarmed the Turkish inhabitants of the district?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The French Command in Cilicia included French Colonial coloured troops and a small Armenian contingent recruited locally by the French. No information is available on the points raised in the second and third parts of the question.

DISTURBANCES AT MARASH.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the actual cause of the outbreak at Marash was the hauling down of the Turkish flag over the Konak by order of the French military governor of the town, Captain André; whether that flag should have been so hauled down, considering that Marash still constitutes a portion of the Turkish empire; and whether such conduct was in itself an act of serious provocation?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no information as to the immediate cause of the outbreak at Marash.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

INTERNMENT CAMPS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the number of persons in internment camps in Hungary; whether any British representative has visited any of these camps; and, if so, what are the conditions in these camps?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Latest indications show that the number of persons interned in Hungary is probably between 1,500 and 1,600.
His Majesty's High Commissioner in Budapest visited the principal internment camp in January last, and his report shows that the conditions then were satisfactory in so far as the general shortage of food admitted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is His Majesty's High Commissioner going to make other visits and keep those camps under observation?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will make inquiries.

ANDREAS MATYKO.

Mr. BROMFIELD: 7.
asked whether Andreas Matyko has been condemned to death by the Hungarian Government and, if so, on what charges; and whether His Majesty's Government intend taking, or have taken, any steps to intervene to save the life of this man?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information concerning this case.

ARMY (MOBILISATION).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 8.
asked whether the Hungarian Government has recently ordered an extensive mobilisation; what is the estimated number of men now under arms in Hungary; and what limits were placed on the size of the Hungarian army by the original Armistice terms?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

AFGHAN FRONTIER CAMPAIGN.

Colonel YATE: 9.
asked what medal is to be given for the operations last year on the Afghan frontier and when orders for the wearing of the ribbon will be issued?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher—for the Secretary of State for India): This question is now under consideration, and I hope that an announcement will be made shortly.

VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENT (HOME SERVICE MEDAL).

Colonel YATE: 10
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the claims of the Voluntary Aid Detachment transport men, who gave such good service all through the War, both by day and night, as stretcher bearers without pay or reward of any kind, will be duly considered in the event of the grant of a home-service medal?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): The claims of the men referred to will not be overlooked, in the event of a medal being awarded for services rendered at home in connection with the War.

RECRUITING POSTERS.

Captain LOSEBY: 11.
asked the Secretary for War if he is aware that recruiting posters are still being exhibited which suggest that the position of sergeant-major in the Regular Army represents the limit to the ambition of a private soldier; and if, in view of the altered conditions, he will consider the advisability of issuing instructions that the sergeant-major's crown should be replaced by a field-marshal's baton?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There are two recruiting posters on which the sergeant-major's crown is shown. One deals with the rates of pay of warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and men, and shows the badge of each rank for which the rate of pay is granted. The pay of officers is not dealt with. The other has "The moving stairway of quick promotion," in which the highest rank shown is that of sergeant-major. The figure at the top of the stairway is obviously moving higher and out of the picture of noncommissioned officers and warrant ranks. I do not think that the field marshal's baton could be brought into this picture consistently with accuracy of description of the moving stairway as being one of "quick promotion."

Captain LOSEBY: Would not posters such as I suggest not only have the effect of stimulating the troops, but also serve as a reminder to the right hon. Gentleman of the pledges with which I think he is familiar?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will consider the matter.

ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (GUNNER S. PRICE).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 18.
asked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that Gunner S. Price, No. 14,544, whose present address is Royal Garrison Artillery Depôt, the Citadel, Plymouth, joined the Army voluntarily on the outbreak of war, that he was wounded and gassed, and that after the Armistice he was asked to volunteer to go to Russia, and that he agreed to go on condition that he could join the Artillery; that he subsequently heard that there was no vacancy in the Artillery, and after remaining at home for about four months, he engaged as a teamsman on a farm named Derwydd, Llanfihangel, North Wales, where he has been since July, 1919, but has just been taken away by the military authorities as an absentee; and whether he will give instructions that this man be released immediately and allowed to resume his employment?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am informed that Gunner Price voluntarily enlisted for the duration of the War in November, 1915. In January, 1919, he voluntarily re-enlisted, with special bounty and furlough privileges, for four years in the Royal Garrison Artillery. He failed to rejoin on the expiration of his furlough and was reported, in the usual manner, as an absentee. He was apprehended by the police in February last, and posted to the Royal Garrison Artillery in accordance with the terms of his enlistment. In view of the fact that his re-enlistment was entirely voluntary, for which he received a special bounty and three months' furlough, I regret I can see no reason for releasing him from his contract.

1914–15 STAR (REGULAR TROOPS, INDIA).

Mr. RENDALL: 20.
asked the Secretary for War whether certain regiments of Regulars, namely, eight infantry, two cavalry, and a few batteries of artillery, in India when the War broke out, have been retained there till quite recently, partly to guard the frontiers and to train the Territorials; whether these regiments took part in several frontier engagements which may well have teen indirectly caused by the unrest produced by the War; whether these regiments have not received the 1914–15 Star given to the Territorials who went to India and were
there for nearly the whole period of the War, and who are now in addition receiving a special medal; why this distinction has been made; and will he consider treating the Regulars in India at least as generously in this matter as the Territorials they protected and taught?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Certain Regular Units were retained in India when War broke out. They formed part of the Field Army on the Indian Frontier, and were employed on various frontier expeditions. With regard to the third part of the hon. Member's question, the conditions governing the award of the "1914–15 Star" are contained in Army Order 20 of 1919, and as will be seen from Appendix A, include certain frontier operations. This Star is awarded to those individuals, irrespective of whether they were Regular or Territorial soldiers, who complied with the conditions laid down, and no distinction has been made. I would point out that members of the Territorial Force who are eligible for the 1914 Star or the 1914–15 Star are not entitled to the special medal in addition.

Mr. RENDALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman defend an arrangement under which regulars who have been in India throughout the War, and who have been training Territorials who only took a small part in the War; regulars who were actually engaged in frontier fighting arising out the War, are to have no reward, medal or distinction of any kind?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. RENDALL: Full notice of the point is given in my question. I want to know why these regular soldiers in India throughout the War, who have been doing work throughout the War, who have been engaged in various frontier attacks in the defence of India, and have been training Territorials, should have no distinction of any kind for all they have done?

Commander Viscount CURZON: Is it a correct statement that the Territorials only played a small part in the War?

Mr. RENDALL: Certain of them.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to this matter?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will represent the views which have been expressed.

BATTALION HONOURS.

Captain LOSEBY: 21.
asked if any scheme has yet been devised whereby badge honours gained by service battalions may be made a perpetual memory, either by emblazoning the colours given to them, or by any other means calculated to preserve the individual records of battalions?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The question of what "battle honours" are to be granted to units has not yet been decided. The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member will, however, be borne in mind.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (COMMAND APPOINTMENTS).

Colonel GREIG: 22.
asked the Secretary for War whether any officers who have commanded units on active service are qualified by appointment to command units in the Territorial Army; and, if so, whether he will take steps to insure that a similar qualification shall apply to the command of brigades in the Territorial Army?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The fact of having successfully commanded a brigade or unit on active service is one of the principal qualifications for appointment to a command in the Territorial Army. It is not the sole consideration, however, because a number of officers, although possessing superior qualifications to those actually given command, could not be spared from the staff or other extra-regimental employment.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.

Colonel NEWMAN: 26.
asked whether it is the intention of the Army and Navy Canteen Board to establish or finance retail establishments in towns where soldiers or sailors are stationed for the supply of all articles required by officers, men, and their dependants; and whether the Canteen Board was set up as a war measure and financed by the taxpayers' money?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on Tuesday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Llandaff and Barry. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Navy and Army Canteen Board was set up
as a permanent organisation, and was partly financed by loans advanced by the Treasury at interest; these loans have since been repaid.

INOCULATION (FORCES IN FRANCE).

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether between 150,000 and 200,000 uninoculated men served in the British Armies in France during the War; whether less than 4,000 of these suffered from enteric, typhoid, or paratyphoid fever; and whether he attributes the immunity of these uninoculated men to the precautions taken regarding the provision of pure water and food and the measures for the destruction of refuse taken by the sanitary services?

Mr. CHURCHILL: During 1917 there were in France approximately 30,000 men who had not recently, or had never, been inoculated, and during 1918 the number was approximately 70,000. Good sanitation has always had a beneficial effect in checking the spread of disease. It is, however, also true that the immunity these men enjoyed was due to the fact that there was only a very small proportion of non-inoculated men in each unit.

COMMISSIONS IN REGULAR ARMY (V.C.)

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain Manley Angell James, V.C, M.C., is a candidate for a commission in the Regular Army, and that this officer is only 23 years of age and was three times wounded; whether, in view of this officer's exceptional service, a vacancy may be made for him, and one vacancy less allotted in the next Sandhurst examination; whether he is aware that another officer, 22 years of age, who joined the Army as a private at 17 years of age, won a commission and a V.C, is also desirous of obtaining a Regular commission; and whether similar arrangements can be made in his case?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Eleven officers, including Captain James, who have earned the Victoria Cross, have been recommended for permanent Regular commissions. It would be invidious to single out one particular officer for treatment as proposed, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest
assured that the fullest consideration will be given to the war services generally of each candidate who is recommended, and in particular to those who have won the Victoria Cross. I regret I cannot adopt the suggestion contained in the second part of the question, the vacancies announced for the examination to be held this summer are intended to furnish officers in the autumn of 1922. As regards the last part of the question, unless the name of the officer is furnished it is not possible to say whether he has been recommended for a permanent Regular commission. As I stated on Tuesday last, I am doing my utmost to expedite a decision.

VOLUNTARY RECRUITING.

Mr. CHADWICK: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the pending termination of the Military Service Act and also in view of the grave responsibilities entailed by the unsettled situation in various parts of the world, he is satisfied with the present strength of the Army and the results of voluntary recruiting; and, if not, does he intend to make a special effort on a voluntary basis to secure the requisite number of men?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated during the Debate last evening, recruiting for the Army is good. The steps which have been taken to secure recruits have so far proved adequate to meet our requirements.

HORSES (EXAMINATION).

Captain COOTE: 19 and 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the present system of the examination of boarded-out Army horses; whether the lessees of these horses are compelled to bring them to a central point from two to four times a year; that this means the complete loss of a working day to those who live at any distance from the central point, and that this involves not only loss of time, but loss of money; in view of the act that inspecting officers are provided with motor cars, whether it would be possible to arrange for more local inspections;
(2) Whether he is aware of the disatisfaction caused by the present system of the inspections of boarded-out Army [...]orses; that such inspections take place
as many as four times a year, and that the lessees of the horses are compelled to bring them in to a central point from whatever distance they may happen to live; that this involves the complete loss of a working day and heavy expense; and, in view of the fact that inspecting officers are provided with motor cars, will he arrange that the inspections are more local in future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Agreement under which Army horses are boarded-out provides for the horses being taken by allottees to a central point within ten miles for the purpose of inspection once every six months. Inspecting officers are not provided with motor-cars, and the Clause in question was inserted in the Agreement to allow the inspection to be carried out at a minimum expense to the State.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up to 10 miles is quite sufficient to deprive one of these allottees of the whole work of the day, and if we can bring to his notice cases where the inspector is in possession of a motor-car will he make arrangements for more local inspections?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be glad to know about the motor-car or anything of that kind. More conveniently situated centres of inspection, where possible, would be an advantage, but I do not see why allottees should not take the same amount of care of these horses when taking them for inspection as if they were taking them to market or to be shod.

OFFICERS' PAY.

Colonel YATE: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the same rule has been applied to officers of the Army as was applied to officers of the Navy in the new rules for naval officers' pay published in July last laying down that officers who became due for compulsory retirement during the War, but continued to serve on the active list, would be treated as retired and called-up officers from the date when such retirement was due and would be paid accordingly, with retrospective effect to 4th August, 1919; and, if not, will he state the reason?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is hoped that this matter will be decided very shortly. I shall be glad if the hon. and
gallant Member will put the question again immediately after Easter.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter favourable consideration?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I would not like to give an answer in advance.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES ARMY (COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to proposals to introduce compulsory military training for the army of the United States?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: An Army Reorganisation Bill was introduced into the United States Senate on the 9th January last. This Bill, which was prepared by the Military Affairs Committee of the Senate, proposed universal military training. The Bill was read twice and was referred back to the Military Committee. An Army Reorganisation Bill has also been introduced into the House of Representatives, but this Bill makes no provision for universal training. Neither of the above Bills has yet gone into Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS

DISABLED SERVICE PENSIONERS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 16.
asked the Secretary for War whether he will favourably consider the question of extending the benefits of the revised rates of service pension laid down in Army Order 325, of 1910, to service pensioners who, through disablement incurred during the War, have been prevented from completing full time for pension, in view of the fact that very considerable hardship and loss is inflicted on the men invalided from the service with only a few months or days short of the required period of 21 years?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As I stated yesterday this point is at present under consideration by an Inter-Departmental Committee.

RE-ENLISTED PENSIONERS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 17.
asked the Secretary for War whether he will consider an Amendment to Army Order 325, of 1919, so that a re-enlisted pensioner who was formerly awarded a modified pension and has since completed 21 years' service shall have his pension reassessed at the revised rates for his pre-War service without the deduction of 10 per cent. which is made in the case of men who have not completed 21 years' service, in view of the fact that the re-enlisted pensioner has served for a longer period than the man who is permitted to take his discharge on modified pension at the present time?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not prepared in any way to reopen the service of re-enlisted pensioners, who draw their pensions in addition to their pay during such new service as they gave in the War.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision is a considerable hardship on a very deserving class of people?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am aware of it, but the whole question of pensions is a very difficult one, as the hon. and gallant Member knows.

ROYAL FUSILIERS (LIEUT. W. HALSTEAD).

Mr. IRVING: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Lieutenant W. Halstead, late 25th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, who enlisted for the duration of the War, having previous lengthy service in the Army to his credit; whether he is aware that after having re-enlisted, and having 19 years 175 days' total service, this soldier was asked to take a temporary commission; that, although he has over 21 years' service to his credit, he has been refused a pension; and whether, in view of the fact that if this man had refused a commission and remained in the ranks he would have been entitled to a service pension, he will have this case reconsidered?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will look into this, and communicate with the hon. Member, but I can make no promise as to the result of my examination.

Mr. IRVING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that this
man was allowed to re-enlist, after his long service, and that owing to the action of the War Office he is suffering this hardship?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member. I have looked into this question, and will look into it still further.

OFFICERS' PAY.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Article 497 (a), Royal Warrant, lays down that an officer who retires on retired pay should be entitled to 31 days' pay for every year of service or any part of a year during which his services are utilised on an emergency; whether he is aware that a ruling has been made limiting the completion of the period to the 4th August, 1919, although many officers serving in India were kept on beyond that period; and by whose authority such alteration of the Royal Warrant has been made, by reason of which certain officers are deprived of 31 days' pay, which under the Royal Warrant is undoubtedly due to them?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: This was the decision of His Majesty's Government, taken after full consideration. Under Article 1 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, etc., 1914, no officer has any claim to the benefit of Article 497 "in the event of such provision being at any time added to, varied, or cancelled"; and in this case the provision in question was duly cancelled by a further Royal Warrant.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent that these alterations in the Royal Warrant should not be made retrospective in future?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not quite sure that that is correct. Notice of nearly six months was given before this alteration took place. Most of the officers who re-joined re-joined voluntarily. The soldiers were not released from compulsion, but the officers were in a different position.

Colonel ASHLEY: When the right hon Gentleman states that it was a decision of His Majesty's Government, does that mean a Cabinet decision, an Army Council decision, or the decision most probably of some small clerk in the Finance Department of the War Office?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid that I may be inaccurate, but I think that it was an Army Council decision.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent that this alteration in the Warrant affects officers who are regular serving officers, or the reserve of officers who joined during the War, and are they to understand in future that a Royal Warrant can be altered merely by the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State for War?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am under the impression that it affects only temporary officers and territorial officers, but not regular officers.

PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).

Colonel ASHLEY: 36.
asked whether any decision has been arrived at in regard to the revision of the rates for commutation of pension by warrant officers and men to bring them into line with the rate for officers; and, if so, whether the conditions under which pensions can now be commuted are available?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I regret that, in the extreme pressure still obtaining in the War Office, it has not yet been possible to revise these rates.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that a great number of these men who are going abroad would wish to know what money they are likely to get?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes. I will do my best to expedite it.

PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Sir R. THOMAS: 61.
asked the Pensions Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to reassess the pensions of pre-war Army pensioners who attested during the War with the object of bringing them up to the same rate as those of the pensioners of the Great War; and whether he is aware that C. S. Macgregor, of 109, Benjamin Road, Wrexham, served for twenty-nine years in the Royal Welsh Fusiliers and took his discharge in January, 1900, and that in September, 1914, he offered himself for service three days in succession at the rank he held on his discharge, namely, sergeant-major, but was informed by the officer commanding at the barracks, Wrexham, that they could not attest him as he was over sixty
years of age, and that since 1915 this man has been drilling cadets at Grove Park School and trained several young men for the Army during the War?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I regret that no exception can be made in this case to the rule that pensions are not re-assessed unless the pensioner re-enlisted during the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS.

Mr. RAPER: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether, on a recent commercial flight from Blackburn to Holland, the machines employed had to waste a whole day in reporting to Lympne before proceeding overseas?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Tryon): My hon. Friend possibly refers to a recent commercial flight from Hull to Holland which has already been the subject of a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. The necessity for landing at Lympne in such cases was fully dealt with in the reply to that question on 11th March (OFFICIAL REPORT, Col. 1556), and in the reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Leeds, N.E., on 15th March (Col. 1829). The amount of time spent at Lympne is largely dependent upon the time-table arranged by the organisers of the flight.

Mr. RAPER: Is it proposed that in all commercial flights machines from all parts of this country must first go to Lympne, whether they come from Scotland or Plymouth or anywhere else?

Major TRYON: That is not the purport of the answer which I have already given.

MESS KIT.

Mr. RAPER: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he will state why it is laid down in the sealed pattern for the Air Force mess kit that pilots' and/or observers' wings may not be worn?

Major TRYON: The Royal Air Force mess uniform was carefully considered by a Committee of Royal Air Force officers. Their recommendations were approved by the Air Council.

Mr. RAPER: Is it not the fact that this rule was brought in by staff officers who have not the right to wear wings? Surely my right hon. Friend is aware that all pilots are proud of that special distinction, and that this is causing very great dissatisfaction?

Major TRYON: I am not aware that there is dissatisfaction. I have inquired, and I understand that All Air Force officers with the exception of store officers will wear wings.

Mr. RAPER: Will the hon. and gallant Member see that in future the observer and the pilot wear their wings?

Major TRYON: They will wear their wings when in regular uniform. The Committee did not think it desirable to wear wings in the mess uniform.

Mr. RAPER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire why?

Major TRYON: Because the officers who were asked to inquire into the matter thought that that was the best plan. Obviously, opinions differ.

Mr. J. JONES: Why not provide them with haloes?

OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY MINISTRY.

Mr. RARER: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry how many officers are employed in the Air Ministry; how many of them are qualified pilots and/or observers; and whether all the officers attached to the Air Ministry who wear pilots' wings have done not less than 20 hours' solo on service-type machines, and also passed all the usual war tests?

Major TRYON: The number of officers of all ranks and classifications in the Air Ministry is 185; this figure includes officers engaged in the Departments of Civil Aviation, Supply and Research, Medical Administration and Stores. Of the total, 82 are qualified pilots or observers. All officers who wear pilots' wings passed all the flying and war tests qualifying them for service in the field at the time at which they earned their wings with the exception of a few officers whose duties were at the time confined to specialist work, and who were granted their wings after passing flying tests. It is unlikely that any individual officer has
passed all war tests as these were essentially specialist tests designed to qualify officers for the particular type of duty for which they were selected.

INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether ex-service men in the Inspection Department of the Air Ministry are being dismissed while non-service men and non-regimental officers are being retained; and is he aware that these non-service men are connected with the Deputy Controller by ties of affinity, consanguinity, or otherwise?

Major TRYON: The staff of the inspection directorate is still in process of reduction to peace establishment. In considering what persons should be retained, preference is given to ex-Service men. Non-Service men and non-regimental officers are retained only where it is clear that they possess superior qualifications for the work, namely, special aeronautical and engineering qualifications not possessed to an equal extent by the ex-Service men being dismissed. With regard to the second part of the question, I have made special inquiry into the complaint made to the Air Ministry on March the 10th, to which, I presume, my hon. Friend refers, and I am satisfied that it is fully covered by my answer to the first part.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE LAWS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the urgent need of an alteration in the marriage laws, to make it legal for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother; and whether, in view of the great number of cases at the present time in which a man is anxious to marry the widow of a brother killed in the War and to care for her children, the Government will introduce the necessary legislation to equalise the treatment of the sexes by removing the barrier to these marriages, as has already been done in the parallel case of marriage with a deceased wife's sister?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Major Baird): My right hon. Friend has no information to show that this question is specially urgent, and he fears that he cannot under-
take to introduce legislation on the subject.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I supply to the right hon. Gentleman plenty of information to show that this reform really is desirable?

Major BAIRD: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider any information that the hon. Member may forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRET POLICE ORGANISATION.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 43.
asked the Home Secretary what is the organisation of which Sir Basil Thomson is in charge; and whether there is now in existence in this country a secret police force on lines similar to those which have existed in many countries throughout the Continent?

Major BAIRD: Sir Basil Thomson is in charge of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police, which has existed in its present form for more than 40 years. The only changes are that he has given up the charge of the Criminal Investigation Department in order to give his whole time to the Special Branch, and that his staff has been slightly increased in order to deal with the increase of work necessarily arising under present conditions. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS' NYSTAGMUS.

Mr. SWAN: 44.
asked the Home Secretary the number of miners who are in receipt of compensation due to miners' nystagmus; and what is the amount paid per year as compensation for miners' nystagmus?

Major BAIRD: In 1914, which is the last year for which figures are available, there were 5,992 cases in which compensation was paid to miners on account of this disease. This total was made up of 3,218 cases continued from previous years and 2,774 new cases. I regret I have no information as to the amount of compensation paid.

Mr. SWAN: 60.
asked the Home Secretary what stops, if any, are being taken either to mitigate or prevent the spreading of the disease of miners' nystagmus; and if he is aware of the great loss of
coal output to the nation caused by it as well as the physical pain caused by the disease to those affected?

Major BAIRD: Working in the insufficient light given by miners' lamps is recognised as the main cause of this disease, and the question of improving the illumination is being investigated by a Departmental Committee which my right hon. Friend appointed last May under the Chairmanship of the present Chief Inspector of Mines. The Committee has been taking evidence both from those engaged in the industry and from scientific and medical experts, and conducting researches at the Home Office Experimental Station at Eskmeals and elsewhere, and they are about to carry out a series of practical trials with lamps giving a better light. The serious effects of this disease are only too obvious, and the hon. Member may be assured that all possible steps are being taken to find an effective remedy.

Mr. SPENCER: May I ask if the Government have any intention of bringing in a Bill to make it compulsory to give a light of two-candle power?

Major BAIRD: I think it is obvious from my answer that the importance of a good light is recognised, but we cannot take definite steps until the inquiry is finished.

Mr. R. McLAREN: May I ask if it is the case that electric light has been inaugurated in some mines, but that it cannot be brought into operation in others because no method has been adopted for detecting gas; and will the hon. Gentleman see that some new arrangement is made so that this can be done and thus give the miners a better light?

Major BAIRD: I think the same answer holds good. The whole of this subject is being inquired into, and when some sensible proposal can be laid before the House it will be.

Mr. A. SHORT: When is the Report likely to come to hand?

Major BAIRD: I cannot say.

Mr. SHORT: Will the hon. Gentleman expedite it?

Major BAIRD: Certainly. No time is being lost. We are fully aware of the importance of the subject, and I am sure
the hon. Gentleman does not desire the inquiry not to be completed fully.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE.

Mr. CLOUGH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to take any action on the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the business of industrial insurance companies?

The SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT of OVERSEAS TRADE (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have been asked to reply. The action to be taken, having regard to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee appointed to enquire into the business of industrail assurance companies and collecting societies, will receive consideration at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. CLYNES: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when the assembly of the League of Nations is to meet?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot add anything to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave yesterday to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: 49.
asked the Prime Minister what is to be the method of selection of the three delegates from the United Kingdom to the Assembly of the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The selection of the British Representatives on the Assembly of the League of Nations will be in the hands of his Majesty's Government.

Mr. SHAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of the selection of at least one of these delegates being made by this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot see that it would be desirable to have an appointment of that kind made in that way. The Government must be responsible.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the promise made to me by the Prime Minister some two months ago that he would consider mak-
ing these appointments in such a way that one at least of the three represented the minorities in this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite a different thing. I am sure that that consideration will be taken into account.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be invited to approve in the usual way of the appointment?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If that course were adopted we should not have much time for anything else.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL DENIKIN.

Mr. LAWSON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether all forms of assistance to General Denikin will be discontinued after 31st March; and whether an assurance can be given that the British military mission with General Denikin will be withdrawn by that date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that the assistance which can now be given is almost entirely of a humanitarian nature, for example, getting the wounded and helpless away, and such assistance, as far as possible, we propose to give. In present circumstances no exact date can be given for the complete withdrawal of the mission, but orders for the withdrawal of the bulk of the mission have already been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES).

Major WHELER: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been any alteration in the allowances for travelling made to civil servants when travelling on Government duty; and whether he will consider the desirability of reducing the allowance to the level of a third-class railway fare in many cases where allowance for a first-class railway fare is now granted?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Apart from the temporary adjustment of subsistence allowances authorised by Treasury Circular of 27th February last, no alteration has been made in the allowances payable to Civil Servants when travelling on official business. The suggestion in the second part of the question will be carefully considered in connection with
any general revision of the present travelling regulations.

Major WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Members of this House travel third class, and, therefore, is there any reason why these Civil Servants should not travel third class?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIES (LOANS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the names of the Allies to whom it is proposed to lend £36,000,000 during the financial year 1920–21; what is the amount to each; and on what terms will the loan be made?

Mr. BALDWIN: Of the total estimate of £36,000,000, £18,000,000 is in respect of adjustments of War commitments, and all but a small portion of this will be balanced by receipts which will appear as Miscellaneous Revenue; £10,000,000 is for relief loans to Austria and Poland, and the remaining £8,000,000 is a revote of credits allocated this year but not yet actually drawn for reconstruction and relief in Belgium and Central Europe. The exact terms on which the loans will be made are not yet settled.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the loan earmarked in any way for relief and reconstruction so that it shall not be used for military purposes?

Mr. BALDWIN: A relief loan obviously cannot be used for military purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES (PENSIONS AND SUBSIDIES).

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he includes among the Estimates for Civil Services end Revenue Departments such items as War pensions, old age pensions, railway subsidy, bread subsidy, and similar expenditure voted by Parliament and over which neither the Treasury nor the Departments have any control or chance of reducing; and if some better method of presenting the Civil Service Estimates could be devised?

Mr. BALDWIN: Our constitutional system distinguishes between estimates for naval and military and air services
on the one hand—that is, non-Civil Services, and on the other hand, estimates for Civil Services, and under the latter heading are included all estimates of expenditure for purposes which are outside naval, military and air services. The Standing Orders of the House do not recognise any other distinction. War pensions, old age pensions, railway subsidy, bread subsidy, etc., are all, therefore, properly classed as Civil Services. I cannot entirely accept the view suggested in my hon. Friend's question that neither the Treasury nor the Departments exercise any control over the expenditure in question. But I am glad to have an opportunity of calling attention to the fact that by far the greater part of the expenditure provided for in the Civil Services Estimates is for services of the kind mentioned in the question, and that the Civil Services Estimates are not, as is sometimes erroneously believed, merely or even mainly estimates of the sums required for the salaries and emoluments of Civil servants.

Sir A. FELL: Would it not be possible to group these in some different way in order to avoid a great deal of the criticism bestowed on them this year?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that any grading would do away with a great deal of the criticism from which we are suffering.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the periodic publications of evidence given before the Royal Commission on Income Tax contain the whole of the evidence or only part of it?

Mr. BALDWIN: The whole of the evidence taken by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax with the exception of the small omission referred to in paragraph 628 of the Report has already been published in the seven instalments (Command 288-I to 288-VII) which have been issued at monthly intervals. It will in due course be republished in volume form with a full index.

Mr. CHADWICK: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, he will
consider the extension of the abatement where there are children over 16 who may be chronic invalids, either physically or mentally, so long as they are maintained in the home of their parent or parents; and whether, in fixing exemption, it is proposed to extend the £250 limit to a parent who, entirely at his or her own cost, supports in the home an invalid son with a wife?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to anticipate his Budget proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS FUND.

Mr. GRITTEN: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to an advertisement in the General Weekly Shipping List by the Customs Fund, under the style of shipping and insurance brokers, forwarding agents, etc., soliciting the consignments of steamers and cargoes, and offering to do Customs clearances, forwarding, sampling, and other classes of work belonging to shipbrokers and shipping firms; and whether, in view of such Government competition with private traders, he will direct the Customs Fund to confine itself solely to its function of timber measuring?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Customs Fund, established in 1816, is a private insurance society to provide life insurances for the benefit of officers of the Customs and their dependants. It is not a Government undertaking, and its profits accrue, not to the Exchequer, but for the benefit of the persons insured and their dependants. The participation of the Customs Fund in the classes of businesses mentioned does not therefore constitute Government competition with private enterprise, nor was the fund formed for the purpose of timber measuring.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENT-CHARGE.

Captain COOTE: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of certain cases of passive resistance to the payment of rates on tithe rent-charge; whether he admits the inequality of charging clergymen with both rates and Income Tax upon their earned income; and, if so, whether he will take steps to remove this inequality in the forthcoming Budget and/or the
foreshadowed revision of the incidence of Income Tax, at least until such time as the rating system be revised upon more equitable lines?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; with regard to the second and third parts of the question the Government have decided that legislation dealing with this matter shall be introduced very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BENBECULA (TRANSPORT).

Dr. MURRAY: 62.
asked the Secretary for Scotand whether, in view of the difficulties and risks attending the transport of passengers, as well as of food and other supplies, across dangerous fords in the island of Benbecula, he will endeavour to arrange for mail and cargo steamers to call at Petersport in that island or, if that is not possible, whether he is prepared, through the Board of Agriculture or otherwise, to construct a safe landing place in the island?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): As my hon. Friend may be aware, the Rural Transport (Scotland) Committee have recommended that Benbecula should be served by a coasting steamer, of smaller size than the mail steamers, which would call at various ports on the cast coast of the Long Island. Such a boat would be able to call at Petersport, Benbecula, and accordingly, were this proposal adopted, the construction of a new landing place on the island would be unnecessary. The Committee's recommendation is at present under consideration, along with other proposals as to Hebridean steamer services.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.

Major WILLIAM MURRAY: 63.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he will furnish a Return showing the counties in Scotland in which land for the settlement of ex-service men and others has been acquired since the Armistice, and also the name and extent of each block of land so acquired?

Mr. MUNRO: I propose to circulate the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the information referred to:

List of properties acquired by the Board since the Armistice, November, 1918:


County.
Name of Estate or farm.
Area.


1.
2.
3.




Acres.


Aberdeenshire
Fortrie
838


Argyllshire
Moy
330



Sunart
50,000




approx.


Ayrshire
Collenan
256



Maxwood
239


Berwickshire
Foulden
1,906



Nordington and Lamberton.
2,185


Dumfriesshire
Terregles
2,600


Fife
Dysart
677



Thirdpart
1,440


Forfar
Gagie
1,537


Haddington
Thorntouloch
670


Inverness
Kingsburgh
13,856



Eoligarry
3,300


Kincardine
Dunbar
1,254


Perthshire
Castle Huntly
690


Ross-shire
Wester Arboll and Lower Pitkerrie.
530


Sutherland
Armadale
39,950



Eriboll
33,000




155,258

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BACON.

Mr. STEWART: 64.
asked the Food Controller whether he will state the number of boxes of bacon which came under his control On 9th August, 1919, how many have been received since, and the average price paid for this bacon; whether much of this bacon has so deteriorated that it has been sold to soap boilers, and, if so, to what extent has this policy of destruction been carried out and the average price obtained for the bacon so destroyed whether large quantities have been re-exported to the Continent as unfit for consumption in this country, and, if so, how many boxes and what is the average price he has obtained for it; whether the present stock left on hand is suffering from deterioration to a considerable extent; and what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): Approximately 500,000 boxes of bacon
were requisitioned by the Ministry of Food from private importers during the period from 9th August to 21st September, 1919. The price to be paid for this bacon is at present the subject of negotiation between the Ministry of Food and the American packers. A large proportion of the amount requisitioned was found when landed to be in an unsatisfactory condition, and such quantities as were unfit for human consumption were sold for soap-making. Without a considerable statistical investigation it is not possible to state the actual amount disposed of in this way, but the average price realised was, approximately, £20 per ton. Free export of all out-of-condition bacon was permitted through the ordinary trade channels. It is not, therefore, possible to state the amount of requisitioned bacon actually exported, nor the average price obtained. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Plaistow, but I would like to emphasise the point that since the resumption of control not a single box of bacon has arrived in such a condition as to be, or to become, unfit for food.

Colonel YATE: Will the public ever be able to see an audited account, giving the result of this adventure in bacon?

Mr. PARKER: I presume the accounts will go in the ordinary course before the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and that the matter will appear in his Report.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask how long these boxes were allowed to remain in this country before it was discovered that the contents had deteriorated?

Mr. PARKER: In the answer I stated that this was found to be wrong on arrival.

Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these audited accounts are presented to this House?

Mr. PARKER: I will convey that to the Department.

Mr. J. JONES: Will arrangements be made with America to see that we get compensation for stuff that goes bad before it lands?

CONDENSED MILK (SUGAR).

Mr. DOYLE: 66.
asked the Food Controller whether sugar is supplied to jam
manufacturers at about 7d. per lb., to the public at 8d. per lb., and has been recently advanced in price to condensed milk manufacturers in England to about 1s. per lb., thereby increasing the price of condensed milk, which is largely used for feeding children, by about 2d. per tin?

Mr. PARKER: So long as the price of condensed milk was controlled the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply continued to supply manufacturers at 66s. per cwt., a price actually below the economic value of sugar. When control was removed on February 1st the price of the sugar was raised to the figure at which issues are made to other manufacturers. The price of sugar allocated to jam manufacturers was advanced to the same level as from March 22nd, on which date the price of sugar for domestic consumption was increased from 8d. to 10d. per lb., except in the case of sugar already in the hands of retailers.

Mr. DOYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman state why there is a differentiation between the price of sugar used in the manufacture of jam and the price of sugar used in the manufacture of condensed milk, and whether condensed milk is not at least as important as jam in view of the fact that it is used largely for children?

Mr. PARKER: I cannot answer in detail beyond saying that in my reply I stated that the price was advanced to the same level in the case of jam on March 22nd.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of penalising a home industry is very serious from the point of view of unemployment?

Mr. PARKER: I will bring that to the notice of the Department.

Colonel ASHLEY: On a point of Order. As this is a question of great importance to everybody in the country, ought we not have, without any disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, a responsible Minister present to give an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman is busy at Northampton.

BREAD SUBSIDY.

Mr. SWAN: 67.
asked the Food Controller whether he will consider the advisability of putting into operation the
scheme, as recommended by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which suggested that if the bread subsidy, was used for bread by bakers and housewives, an economy would be effected of approximately £29,000,000 this year, and the administering scheme would only cost £200,000?

Mr. BARKER: The Food Controller has no knowledge of any recommendation by the Select Committee on National Expenditure to the effect that £29,000,000 might be saved by restricting the use of subsidised flour to the manufacture of bread. The Food Controller is advised that an attempt to restrict the application of the bread subsidy to flour used for bread-making would involve the setting up of elaborate and costly machinery for the rationing of bread and flour and the impossibility of preventing serious leakage would considerably reduce the saving effected.

MINISTRY STAFF AND STOCKS.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 68 and 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) the total numbers of males and females employed by the Ministry of Food on the last day of each of the five months ending 29th February ultimo; what was the charge on public funds for such employment during each of those months? (2) What stocks of sugar, butter, wheat, flour, beef, mutton, and bacon were held by the Ministry of Food on the last day of each of the five months ending 29th February ultimo; what were the prevailing prices for those commodities paid by the Ministry of Food in those months; what were the prices charged by the Ministry to wholesale and other purchasers; and what was the monthly consumption of such stocks?

Mr. PARKER: As the answer is a long one, I propose to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT

The following is the Answer referred to:

The total number of the staff of the Ministry of Food during the period mentioned is approximately 4,500, composed of males and females in almost equal proportion, and costing approximately £80,000 a month. One-fifth of the present staff consists of ex-service men. These figures show a reduction of approximately one-half since the date of the Armistice. For a staff thus depleted to
have to prepare the elaborate return as to stocks, prices and consumption asked for by the hon. Member would necessitate the neglect of more important and more urgent work. It is not, therefore, possible to give the detailed information sought; nor would it be advisable to state the stocks held or the prices actually paid by the Department. The necessary information as to the trading accounts may be gathered from the White Paper containing the Financial Report, the Appropriation Account and Balance Sheet which will be published in due course. I can, however, give the following approximate figures as to the rate of distribution in recent months of the stocks named in the question, as follows:




Tons per month.


Sugar
…
90,000


Butter
…
5,000


Bacon
…
25,000


Wheat and Flour
…
610,000

As regards beef and mutton, since the transfer of the control of imported meat to the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Food has acquired no fresh stock. The monthly consumption of imported meat is at present from 50,000 to 55,000 tons.

FLOUR.

Major BARNES: 65.
asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the unfair position in which the retail trader has been placed by the increase of the price of flour, as the wholesaler is allowed to collect cash at the increased price as from the 15th March, 1920, whilst the retailer has to sell at the old maximum price and will only be recompensed by credit note?

Mr. HURD: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that a retailer has to advance money for the increased price of flour under the Order which came into force on 15th March, and has to await reimbursement at some future date by a system of credit notes instead of cash; if he will say who is to pay for the services of the professional accountant whom the trader is compelled to call in to certify his statement of stocks; and whether he will devise some simpler method of carrying out this policy?

Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller cannot agree that the Order referred to has placed retailers of bread and flour in an unfair position as compared with whole-
salers. The latter are required to pay to the Government forthwith the difference of 19s 3d. per 280 lbs. between the old and the new wholesale prices, whereas the former will continue to sell flour and bread at the current maximum retail prices, but will be compensated at the end of the flour week period on any stocks of flour purchased at the increased wholesale price. The method of compensation by credit in the books of the supplier was devised after very careful consideration, and is regarded as essential for the adequate protection both of the Treasury and the consumer. As traders' accounts may be certified by a responsible householder no expense need necessarily be incurred in this connection.

Mr. HURD: Is it thought that this is the simplest method of carrying out this Order?

Mr. PARKER: I presume that is the opinion of the Department.

WHEAT (AUSTRALIAN EXPORTABLE SURPLUS).

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 88.
asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the exportable surplus of 2,700,000 metric tons of wheat in Australia and New Zealand has been bought by His Majesty's Government, either through the Wheat Commission or otherwise; and what arrangements have been made for bringing it to this country?

Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. Of the total exportable surplus of Australian wheat the quantity available for the United Kingdom amounts approximately to 1,500,000 tons, and it has already been purchased by the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The arrangements that have been made for shipment will, it is hoped, ensure the arrival of the entire quantity during the current cereal year. New Zealand has no exportable surplus, but is, on the contrary, an importer of wheat.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIVE HIDES (CONTROL).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state on what grounds the control of native hides was
carried out, and how much the price per pound has risen since the control was removed?

Mr. PARKER: The control of native hides was instituted as a war measure by the War Office (Contracts Department) in 1916. The control of hides was removed on 29th February and sufficient time has hardly elapsed to allow the market to become stabilised. The average increase in price would, however, appear to be approximately 5 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (EUROPEANS AND NON-EUROPEANS).

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the discrimination between Europeans and non-Europeans in the Uganda Railway carriages, waiting-rooms, and lake steamers has the approval of His Majesty's Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-colonel Amery): Information which I obtained from the Governor does not support the suggestion that there is discrimination of the kind mentioned, except in so far as a certain number of second-class compartments in trains on the Uganda Railway are reserved for Europeans. In any case this is a matter of local administration in which I should not wish to interfere with the discretion of the Protectorate Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EAST AFRICA (LAND SALES).

Mr. LAWSON: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether restrictions have been placed on land sales and mortgages to Indians in British East Africa; what is the nature of the restrictions; and why they have been imposed?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 18th of March.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (LORD MILNER'S COMMISSION).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
when copies of the Report of the Milner Commission to Egypt will be available for Members of this House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have not yet received the Report in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (SPEED RESTRICTION WITHDRAWN).

Viscount CURZON: 75.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state when the speed restriction of 12 miles per hour in the Royal parks was introduced; and whether it could now be somewhat increased, in view of the experience gained since its imposition?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): The present restriction was imposed in 1910. The question of abolishing it has been carefully considered, and the regulation has been withdrawn. The ordinary speed limit now applies, but it will be strictly enforced as far as the Royal parks are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

POSTAL FACILITIES, ANGLESEY.

Sir R. THOMAS: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Valley Post Office, Anglesey, serves the villages of Bryngwran and Gwalchmai, a distance of some seven miles, and that on an average the postman is obliged to carry on his back, riding a bicycle, an average weight of about 65 lbs.; whether he is aware that the district from Bodorgan to Newborough, including Malltraeth, Anglesey, is served by only one postman, who has to do the journey twice daily, about four miles each way, on foot, and usually with a heavy load, in a part of the country which is very exposed in winter, sometimes having to walk over his knees in water; and whether he will see that such places are provided with a horse and trap or a motor for the conveyance of mails?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Letters and parcels for delivery at Bryngwran and Gwalchmai are conveyed as far as Bryngwran by two cycle postmen, one of whom then proceeds to Gwalchmai. The weight of postal
packets (taken out partly on the postmen s backs and partly on the carriers attached to the bicycles) averages 42 lbs. per man, and whenever it exceeds 50 lbs. per man assistance is provided. The Bodorgan-Newborough postman, who is provided with a cycle and does not travel on foot, conveys a load averaging about 35 lbs. There is no case for incurring the heavy expense of a horse and cart or a motor on this post. I am informed that, although a portion of the route is occasionally flooded during very high tides, it is only to the depth of a few inches, and the flood can be avoided by using a public pathway along an embankment.

POSTAL DELIVERIES, CHESHAM PLACE.

Sir J. D. REES: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, whereas letters are delivered in Pont Street and in Belgrave Square at 8 a.m., delivery is not made in the intervening Chesham Place till 8.45 a.m.; and whether there are no means of ensuring earlier delivery without the entertainment of additions to the staff?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: There is no such method other than the re-arrangement of the postmen's walks in such a way as to benefit Chesham Place at the expense of neighbouring streets.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider if he cannot do something to expedite delivery in this part of late and lazy London?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will have it enquired into again to see if anything can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

MINISTRY (STAFF).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether certain members of the Ministry of Munitions, who have their own private businesses or professions in being and who give considerable attention thereto, are still being retained in the Ministry; and whether, in the interests of the Department, these positions can be filled by ex-service men who could devote their whole time to their duties and send the others to their own businesses and so increase production?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. J. Hope): Certain old officials are being temporarily retained in the Ministry on a whole-time basis in order to finish particular work of which they alone have the necessary knowledge. The Ministry gives preference of employment to ex-service men wherever possible in posts for which the need continues.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general uneasiness amongst ex-service men in regard to their position in the Department, in that they are confined, generally speaking, to temporary and lower paid posts, and would he consider the advisability of inquiring generally into their whole position?

Mr. HOPE: I was not aware of any special uneasiness among the ex-service men, for whom, I think, very great efforts have been made, but of course, when you have a staff which has been reduced, and when there is continual pressure to reduce it further, there must necessarily be uneasiness among all the members of that staff, whether ex-service men or not.

WAR STORES (DISPOSAL TO FRANCE AND BELGIUM).

Sir J. CORY: 80.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will give full details of the purchases of war stores by the Belgian and French Governments from the British authorities since the Armistice, indicating both quantities and values?

Mr. HOPE: Owing to the length of the answer, I will, with the hon. Member's consent, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the replay referred to:

Sales of surplus war property have been made to the Belgian Government to the value of approximately £6,000,000. The articles comprise broad gauge railway lines and installations in situ, railway spares, Decauville track, locomotives and spare parts, wagons; cranes, etc.; tugs, launches and barges: bridges; machine tools; huts; tarpaulins; and the whole contents of the Arsenal at Mons, comprising a Very large number of articles. The sales to the French Government, which have not yet been entirely scheduled, are estimated to amount to about £20,000,000.
They comprise railway lines and installations, both normal gauge and light gauge, wharves, bridges, huts, dock equipment, engineering plant and tools, and the whole of the contents of the dumps in the advanced areas and in the arrondissements of Calais and Dunkirk, covering stores of almost every conceivable nature. My hon. Friend will see from the foregoing that it is impossible to give him an exhaustive statement within the limits of a Parliamentary answer. The stores are still in process of transfer to the respective Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

CINEMA BUILDING, TOTTENHAM.

Mr. HALLAS: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, while no houses are being built by the Tottenham Urban District Council, a private company is being permitted to build a large cinema in Bruce Grove, which is in the area of that Council; and whether he will use his influence to induce that Council to employ their powers under Section 5 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, for the purpose of suspending the erection of the said cinema so that the labour and material there in use can be set free for housing purposes?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY (Comptroller of the Household): I have been in communication with the district council, and will, as soon as I am able, communicate with my hon. Friend on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIENNA RELIEF (BRADFORD CITY COUNCIL).

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Bradford city council in voting £1,000 of the ratepayers' money to the relief of poor children in Vienna; and whether any action can be taken to protect the ratepayers from this and similar compulsory levies?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The accounts in question are not subject to Government audit, but it is open to ratepayers who desire to object to expenditure either to apply for a writ of certiorari, under which the
order for payment would be removed into the High Court, or to apply to the High Court for an injunction.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON THEATRES (QUEUES).

Sir J. CORY: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has considered the effect on the health of the community of the practice of forming queues in all weathers for the galleries and pits of the London theatres; and whether he will consider the desirability of calling a conference of theatre and music-hall managers to consider measures for doing away with this practice?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: There is not sufficient evidence of the injurious effect of theatre queues to justify me in taking action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

Viscount CURZON: Is he aware that numbers of the population have to wait for long hours in the rain outside theatres, and cannot something be done?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The answer says that the Minister of Health does not think there is sufficient evidence of any injurious effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TRAVELLING FACILITIES (STUDENTS).

Sir J. CORY: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will say to what extent pre-war privileges to students in the matter of season tickets at half rates have been restored; and if he will make representations to the Ministry of Transport in favour of a full restoration without delay?

Mr. FISHER: The pre-war arrangement was that students up to 18 years of age could obtain season tickets at half the ordinary rate upon surrender of a certificate from the headmaster of the school or the principal of the college. This arrangement has not been altered and is still in operation.

IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that a number of persons trans-
ferred from the Royal College of Science and the Royal School of Mines to the Imperial College of Science and Technology are being paid from £40 to £115 a year less than is being paid to persons in similar employment in Government Departments; that other persons engaged directly by the Imperial College governors are being paid at a much lower rate than the Civil Service standard; and whether he will take steps to raise these men's wages to the same level as the wages paid in Government Departments to men engaged in similar work?

Mr. FISHER: The Imperial College of Science and Technology is controlled and financed by an independent governing body under Royal Charter and His Majesty's Government have no direct responsibility for the administration of the college. I have no detailed information concerning the rates of wages referred to by the hon. Member, nor have I any authority to take such action as he suggests.

Mr. WILSON: Is a grant made by Parliament to the college?

Mr. FISHER: Yes, there is a grant made.

Mr. WILSON: Will he make representations to the governors of the college in connection with this matter?

Mr. FISHER: I think it is very important that the President of the Board of Education should not interfere with the internal administration of the college.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (PROPAGANDA).

Mr. HURD: 87.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Lord President of the Council in Paris to the Association Française pour la Société des Nations strongly urging that a systematic endeavour should be made to spread knowledge of the real objects of the League of Nations through the schools for the benefit of the parents as well as of the children; and what steps of this character are being taken in this country?

Mr. FISHER: I have seen a brief report of my right hon. Friend's address, in which he is careful to notice that the organisation of public education is different in France and England. I am sure
the Local Education Authorities and teachers appreciate the importance of the subject, and with the co-operation of the various organisations which are advocating the principles of the League of Nations I have no doubt they will contribute to the object which the hon. Member has in view.

Mr. HURD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman devise means of reminding them in the different parts of the country of the value of the work they can do?

Mr. FISHER: They are constantly being reminded of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

RIOT, DUBLIN.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can give the House any information with regard to the death of two civilians—a man and a woman—in Dublin yesterday?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): No; I am sorry I have not had notice of this question; but I have received the following telegram:
The 22nd of March is the anniversary day of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, and 150 were given free tickets by the battalion for the performance at the Royal Theatre. At the end of the performance the men sang the National Anthem. No disturbance occurred. The men then proceeded home in groups, singing. A crowd collected and followed, and on reaching Kelly's Corner, at about 9 p.m., the crowd commenced to throw stones at the troops. The troops were unarmed, but defended themselves, gradually moving up South Richmond Street. On reaching Lennox Street, the troops were fired on by the crowd, who used revolvers; one soldier was shot in the chest. At 9.45 p.m. information reached Royal Berks headquarters at Portobello Barracks concerning the disturbance. A cyclist patrol, under an officer, was ordered to proceed to the scene of the disturbance, and to assist the men who had been attending the theatre to return. The patrol reached the scene at about 10 p.m., and was supported by a

piquet on foot. On reaching Portobello Bridge, fire was opened on patrol from direction of Portobello House, and stones were thrown by the crowd. The officer in charge of patrol, considering that his command was in danger, cautioned the crowd, and ordered them to disperse. The crowd refused to do so. The officer then ordered ten rounds to be fired, and charged the crowd, which withdrew to Fade Street. The patrol followed up the crowd as far as Kelly's Corner, where it was again fired on by civilians. A position was taken up at Kelly's Corner, and civilians in the vicinity were searched for arms. A further reinforcement was sent to the patrol from Portobello Barracks, but nothing further transpired."

Sir J. BUTCHER: Have any arrests been made?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot state that at the present moment. I will endeavour to find out.

Colonel YATE: Will that officer be commended for his good services?

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

"to amend the enactments relating to Savings Banks; to extend to National Savings Certificates the enactments relating to War Savings Certificates; and to amend the law with respect to the transfer of Government stock by Savings Bank authorities," presented by Mr. BALDWIN; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Coal Mines (Emergency) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 56.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Barnston, Major Harry
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barrand, A. R.
Blair, Major Reginald


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Barrie, Charles Coupar
Berwick, Major G. O.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Bowles, Colonel H. F.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Astor, Viscountess
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Atkey, A. R.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brassey, Major H. L. C.


Baldwin, Stanley
Bethell, Sir John Henry
Breese, Major Charles E.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Betterton, Henry B.
Briggs, Harold


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brown, Captain D. C.


Bruton, Sir James
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Houston, Robert P.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Howard, Major S. G.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Butcher, Sir John George
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rendall, Atheistan


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hurd, Percy A.
Renwick, George


Casey, T. W.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cautley, Henry S.
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Chadwick, R. Burton
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rotherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jellett, William Morgan
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Jesson, C.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seager, Sir William


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Seddon, J. A.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kidd, James
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Simm, M. T.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Courthope, Major George L.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stanton, Charles B.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lloyd, George Butler
Stevens, Marshall


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stewart, Gershom


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)
Lynn, R. J.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Taylor, J.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
M'Guffin, Samuel
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Macmaster, Donald
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Donald, Thompson
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Maddocks, Henry
Tickler, Thomas George


Duncannon, Viscount
Magnus, Sir Philip
Tryon, Major George Clement


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Mallalieu, F. W.
Vickers, Douglas


Edgar, Clifford B.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Waddington, R.


Edge, Captain William
Matthews, David
Wallace, J.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Morison, Thomas Brash
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Waring, Major Walter


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Mount, William Arthur
Wason, John Cathcart


Gardiner, James
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Gardner, Ernest
Murchison, C. K.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Whitla, Sir William


Glyn, Major Ralph
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Williams, Lt. Com. C. (Tavistock)


Golf, Sir R. Park
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Grant, James A.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wilson, Capt A. S. (Holderness)


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col, M. J. (Richmond)


Greig, Colonel James William
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, William G (Petersfield)
Winterton, Major Earl


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Woods, Sir Robert


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Parker, James
Woolcock, William James U.


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Perring, William George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


Hinds, John
Prescott, Major W. H.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Grundy, T. W.
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hallas, Eldred
Rose, Frank H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Sexton, James


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hogge, James Myles
Spencer, George A.


Brcmfield, William
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E. C.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cairns, John
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Donnelly, P.
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Allen


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
 Parkinson.


Resolutions agreed to.

Ordered, "That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and Proceedings on Report of Supply and Ways and Means may be taken after Eleven of the clock."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

READY-MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 11th June.

DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.

Reported, With Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

Sir FRANCIS LOWE reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That Captain H. Knights, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Shops (Early Closing) Bill): Mr. Baird, Major Barnett, Mr. Briant, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Donald, Major Farquharson, Mr. Finney, Major Henderson, Mr. Hinds, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Sitch, Mr. Secretary Shortt, Captain Tudor-Rees, Mr. Wignall, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Blind (Education, Employ-
ment, and Maintenance) Bill); Mr. Sugden; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Kingsley Wood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY. [4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

Resolutions reported,
1. "That 136,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boy", Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.
2. "That a sum not exceeding £21,459,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, and Mercantile Officers and Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.

Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir T. BRAMSDON: When this Vote came before the Committee my right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, made a very important statement in regard to the clothing of the petty officers of the Royal Navy. This was the very welcome announcement that the new uniform had been agreed upon, the uniform known in the Navy as the fore and aft uniform; but he made this qualification, that it was only to be worn by petty officers of four years seniority. I have since that announcement been brought into contact with many of those concerned, and I tell my right hon. Friend there is very great disappointment throughout the service that it has been found necessary to restrict the wearing of the uniform. As a matter of fact, petty officers in the Navy were anticipating this concession for a long time, having been led to the belief that it would be granted; indeed, that it was settled except as to the actual pattern of the uniform. There was a question as to the difference between this uniform and the uniform of a chief petty officer. I ask my right hon. Friend if he will be good enough to take this matter again into his consideration. There is great and genuine disappointment that the petty officers throughout the Navy have not had this thing fully conceded. The restriction only applies to seamen petty officers and to stoker petty officers;
all other classes of petty officers have this particular new class of uniform. Petty officers having anticipated this concession have ordered the uniform largely throughout the Navy, and this was considered an opportune moment to be ready for the wearing of it. The First Lord will probably be aware that I have put down a question on the subject for to-morrow. It is quite possible he may not be able to give me a definite answer to-day. If he can, well and good. If not, I shall wait. But if he can give me a satisfactory answer I can assure him that the petty officers will be very grateful. If he cannot give me an answer, I feel confident that he will give fuller consideration to the matter in conjunction with his colleagues, and probably be prepared to give me an answer later.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Owing to my ignorance of the procedure followed in this House on Wednesday and Thursday last, I failed, when the Navy Estimates were in Committee, to bring forward several points which I intended to do on Votes A and 1. I should like to call attention in the first place to the extraordinarily small contribution that is made by India and the Union of South Africa towards the naval fund. India—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the question we are now discussing. The question is "That 136,000 officers, seamen and boys, coastguard, and royal marines be employed," and so on. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must limit himself to that.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Commander BELLAIRS: It is some atonement for the statement of the First Lord being thrust into the dinner hour the other evening that we get this Vote on its Report stage at the beginning of our proceedings to-day. The only opposition that my right hon. Friend encountered, except from suspicious people in regard to the Air Force, was from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). He said nice things about Lord Fisher, and Lord Fisher is in the habit of saying nice things about the right hon. Gentleman. Just before he made his speech the other evening Lord Fisher wrote one of his regular
letters to "The Times." In this letter, on 16th March, dealing with these Estimates, Lord Fisher gave his opinion. He said:
Look also at these Estimates just presented to the House of Commons. A downright scandalous waste of money in nearly every line.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are talking now, I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman, about the number of men to be employed.

Commander BELLAIRS: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Will one be able on the next Vote to raise the question of the general line of policy? It has been, I think, the custom on many occasions to deal with policy on the Report stage of Vote A?

Mr. SPEAKER: It has never been customary on Report to indulge in a general discussion.

4.0 P.M.

Commander BELLAIRS: Then I will deal exclusively with the question of the officers and men. I presume that I can deal with the question of the common entry system. The common entry system has been altered to a large extent. It was a great point of controversy at one time in this House. We have abandoned the scheme with regard to officers of the Marines for some time, and we have now also abandoned it for the other officers to some extent, because we are entering boys directly into the Navy from the public schools 15 per annum, as compared with 120 per annum. I would suggest that the proportion of boys entered from the public schools for midshipmen should be increased, say, to one in four instead of one in eight, because when they get afloat they are liable to feel isolated among the others. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) pointed out when the House was in Committee, the public school entries have been a great success, and they are also economical, because they cost next to nothing to educate. The boy goes to sea one year in a training ship and he then becomes a full-blown midshipman. From that point of view, I urge that the proportion of these boys who come from the public schools should be increased. There is one other question in regard to personnel that I wish to raise now, and there are a number of other questions
with regard to economy that I should like to submit to my right hon. Friend in writing.
I wish to raise the question of engine-room artificers and artificer engineers. I suggest that we develop the apprentice system as much as possible. The appretice system has given us a magnificent body of engine-room artificers, and artificer engineers, and has given to the mercantile marine their entire body of engineer officers, who are really Naval Reserve officers. There is no reason why we should not thoroughly trust the engine-room artificer and the artificer engineer. There was a certain amount of distrust of them arising from a dislike of having men in the service belonging to trade unions, but the engine-room artificers have existed since 1868, and during the 52 years of their existence they have proved themselves a magnificent body of men. They have never given any sort of trouble from the fact that they belong to the trade unions. Undoubtedly, at times they have urged their own men not to join the Navy, because they have been dissatisfied with the conditions, but that is a perfectly legitimate weapon, which has been resorted to by the surgeons of the Army, and I believe also by the surgeons of the Navy, at different times. The Admiralty are entirely satisfied with the engine-room artificers, and the artificer engineers. Yet in 1893 they introduced the mechanician as a sort of rival to the engine-room artificer. I submit that the mechanician was a very expensive man to educate. At the time I went into the figures, and he cost about £240, whereas the artificer cost nothing, because he came direct from trading in the working shops of the country into the Navy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the Admiralty are offering 44 per cent. to the mechanicians for their discharge, and only 2 per cent. to the engine-room artificers. That shows which is the body of men that they want to keep.
I understand that the Admiralty do not deny that they want more engine-room officers. They have a redundancy of engine-room commanders. If you had more engine-room officers there would be more officers looking for promotion to commanders, whereas if you promote more artificer engineers they will not to the same extent expect promotion to the higher ranks of commanders. I do not
exclude them from promotion to the higher ranks, I think, and I have urged in the past, that you should give promotion to the lower deck, but I have always stated that it is no use doing that unless you promote them young. Those who are promoted old do not expect to go much further. You must also promote them young, so that they can look forward to reaching the highest ranks. The same argument applies to engine-room artificers. You want to promote them young if they are ever to reach the higher ranks. At the present time they are not promoted until they are about thirty-two years of age. There is one other point connected directly with personnel. The nucleus crew system, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton knows, was introduced by Lord Fisher about the year 1904. For its special purposes it was one of the best reforms that he introduced, that is, it was one suited to a condition of maintaining absolute readiness for war against Germany. It had the disadvantage that crews lost in training. The men were put into nucleus crews in ships that were not exercised like ships in full commission, and they could not be sent to training ships. It is no longer necessary to be so ready for mobilising against any country as it was in the old days when the German Navy existed. Therefore, I submit that the time has come to consider whether we should not scrap the nucleus crew system and pass these officers and men through the training ships of the Navy. They would thus get much greater benefit than if they remain in nucleus crew ships stopping in harbour.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want, very respectfully, to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give us some reply to one or two questions raised with regard to personnel on Tuesday. I know it was not his fault that the hour precluded his replying, but I would like to ask him for just a word on these points. Has it been decided to do away with all fees at Dartmouth? This is an important matter in these days of high taxation, when there are so many middle-class people, officers' widows, and so on, who may have sons and who are precluded from putting those sons into the Navy because of the fees. It would be much more democratic and more in line with public opinion if all classes could go into
the Navy through Dartmouth simply on merit and without being held up by the question of fees. At the present time we are not getting quite the class in the Navy that we used to get. I have watched this thing for three years. You used to get a class of almost hereditary Service families. They came from the Indian Civil Service, the professional people, and the small landed proprietors, who provided an excellent seminary Now, with the introduction of Osborne and higher fees you have a different class, richer and without that tradition, and men go into the Navy only to get a cachet. They stay in it a few years and then leave. That is bad for the Service Most naval officers have deplored the introduction of this large element of purely money people, and the only thing is to do away with the fees. It would be a wise economy in the long run, because you would get a better selection from the wider field of choice.
I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why men are required to man quite obsolete vessels. I will only mention the names of ships that at present appear in the Navy List. There is the "Highflyer," East India 17-knot cruiser of the old protected cruiser class, quite useless for modern warfare. She may be a comfortable flagship, but I am quite certain that any Admiral would willingly change her for a fast modern ship, even if she were not quite so well fitted up. A ship like the "Highflyer" is quite useless under modern war conditions. The others are the "Commonwealth," "Carnarvon," "Cumberland," "Glory," and last and least, the "Hussar," in the Mediterranean. I do think in these days, when we should look at every penny that we should spend purely on naval efficiency, and that these sort of ships are luxuries. I fear that there may be a reaction if the public find these things out, and that we may go to the other extreme, and cut down vital services of the Navy. That is the danger of keeping up these sort of ships, and spending money on them. I make this criticism in the most friendly way. I do hope that we have a sound policy in this matter, and also with regard to these sloops of slow speed that are abroad on all foreign stations. One of these sloops, commanded by a friend of mine, was shot to pieces on the West Coast of Ireland
by a submarine on the surface. That shows that these ships for fighting purposes are useless.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not talking about ships, but men.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I suggest, with the greatest respect, that these ships are taking on men. Some of us wished to reduce the figures when the Estimates were discussed in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself puzzled as to what we were dividing on. I am trying to show him now, I hope in a helpful spirit, that men could be saved by paying off these useless ships, and perhaps in some cases employing them in more modern ships.

Commander Viscount CURZON: The first point I should like to touch on is that of the nucleus crew system. I heard the hon. and gallant member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) just now say that possibly the nucleus crew system was one of the best reforms ever instituted Possibly I am the only Member who has actually served in a nucleus crew ship. I do not know about the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Perhaps he has served in one, too. I know what is a nucleus crew ship, and I hope, whatever may be our lines of naval policy in the future, that we shall on no account revert to that system. It is bad from the point of view of both officers and men. They get stale, and lose all interest in their work, and in the Service in many cases.

Commander BELLAIRS: I proposed its abolition. I merely said that it was suited to the special contingency when the German Navy was in existence.

Viscount CURZON: I merely wanted, if I could, to reinforce what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, and to express the hope that on no account whatever shall we revert to the system of nucleus crew ships. I did address a question to the First Lord with reference to the scrapping policy. I hope that I shall be in order in referring to it here, because it distinctly concerns the number of men to be voted for the Navy. I want to find out what their scrapping policy really is, and what ships will be dispensed with, particularly those of the Dreadnought type. I have seen it stated in the papers that it is proposed to do away
with several very important units of the all big gun type while ships of a more inferior class are in commission. I wish to ask the First Lord whether he can give up any definite information on this point because none can be gleaned from the Navy Estimates.
The next subject I wish to raise is that of the number of flag officers flying their flags. I have studied the Navy List and the reserve fleets and I find that we have no less than six admirals flying their flags. Of course they have their staffs, and all that means extra expense. I want to know if, since those admirals were appointed, any of their ships have been to sea, or is it intended that they should go to sea and can they go to sea with the number of men they have on board. I think it is very important to see that there should be no suspicion of jobs being found for senior highly-placed officers in the Navy. I am in favour of those officers being employed, but I would rather see them occupied in real training for war than flying flags in battleships which probably never go outside the dockyard basin. In the February list I see that we have an Egyptian squadron flag officer. I should like to know whether this squadron is still in existence. I also notice that on the Yang-tse we have a commodore. I do not know what ships he has under his command, but I would like to know whether this is a new command or whether it existed before the War, and if not, what are the reasons for such a command at the present moment.
The only other point I wish to raise is the question of the special entry cadets. This is a question of great importance, and it was referred to by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). I quite realise that the Admiralty have tried to be very generous to the public schoolboys in giving them fifteen vacancies per annum, but is the First Lord sure that with this programme of fifteen vacancies for special entry cadets it will be sufficient to enable such schools as Harrow, Eton, and so on, to lay down a definite programme. So far as my experience goes, the special entry cadets are drawn from what would be called second-class public schools, and it would not be possible for the greater public schools, such as Harrow, Eton and Winchester, to compete in this direction. Therefore, I hope the First Lord, so far
from confining himself to fifteen entries, will increase the number of vacancies offered to special entry cadets, because they are a class who are animated by a love of the service. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me an answer to these questions.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I only wish to raise two or three points. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the home ports in certain naval establishments the ratings employed get a food allowance? Hitherto the same food allowance has been given to officers as well.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are now dealing with the number of men. Questions affecting pay and allowances come on the next Vote.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Before my right hon. Friend replies to the questions which have been asked, I would like to put a question. I do not propose to repeat the criticisms which I made last week, but I would like to ask a question affecting the number of men necessary for the upkeep of the Royal Navy. It was reported quite recently that Canada proposes to cut adrift from the naval defence of the Empire. Lord Jellicoe has gone round to various sister nations and has prepared a very valuable Report for the common defence of the Empire, and anything from him would be entitled to the very respectful consideration of this House and the country. For these reasons I would like to know whether the First Lord can give the Information I ask for as to whether it is true that Canada has decided to close down two dockyards, and whether she has refused the offer of two warships which the British Admiralty propose to offer to Canada, If my right hon. Friend will answer those questions it will afford satisfaction to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: The question of the abolition of the submarine has already been referred to. I know we cannot actually discuss that subject, but we can discuss the number of men who consequently would be released if the submarine could go. The submarine service in peace time has no merit at all. It is no use, and even in war time it requires an enormous personnel. It is one of the most difficult of all weapons to defeat, and the high skill required renders it one of the most expensive of our Ser-
vices. In the Notes on Naval Policy issued by the Admiralty they say that during the War, on the British side, the enemy submarines in no way interfered with the movement of capital ships in carrying out naval operations and tactical movements. We are employing a large number of men to deal with the, submarine, and I would like to ask the First Lord whether he can see his way to getting this question put before some high authority, like the League of Nations, to see if we cannot do away altogether with this weapon of war. I can quite understand that no recommendation could come from one Department of the Admiralty to do away with itself, but I am sure from the point of view of economy and humanity the less we see of the submarine the better.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) asked a question about the fore and aft new uniform for the petty officers of the Navy. The only answer I can give is that we have to put to the Treasury a great many questions involving expenditure, and all we can expect to do, with due regard to economy, is to get such concessions as apply generally to the whole Service, and we cannot get all we want in any particular direction. I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member, and as he tells me that he has received a very general expression of opinion from the men of the Navy that they would like this concession to go further, I will consider it; but I hope he will realise that I always have the financial difficulty before me. It is no use telling me one day that I must cut down expenses and be economical and the next day urge upon me all sorts of different suggestions which mean the expenditure of more money. All we can do is to recommend to the Government what we believe to be wise reform. This is all we can get, and I say that, in my opinion, I have no right to complain of the action of the Treasury, because, on the whole, they have treated us with great liberality, and they realise that what is being done is in the general interests of the Service.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inquire what the expense has been in this connection?

Mr. LONG: It is a very old story, but I will inquire into it. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) referred to common entry, and he advocates that the number of 15 public schoolboys should be increased. My hon. Friend may rest assured that he can have no warmer advocate of that system than myself, because I am an old public schoolboy. Probably the best officers we have were taught in the public schools, and I believe they send us recruits of the greatest value to any service that is willing to receive them. At the present time we are very limited in the number of entries we can offer each year. We have Osborne and Dartmouth, which we are now going to combine into one naval college, and it is to this institution that the sons of old service men and the sons of ex-naval men mainly go. It has been urged that we should abolish special entries at Dartmouth altogether and so make the opportunities equal for all. I think my hon. and gallant Friend has overlooked one elementary fact. Dartmouth and Osborne are not elementary schools. Boys who come there have had to go through their groundwork of education for several years before, and the real difficulty in equalising the chances for all to enter the Navy, a thing we all desire, consists not in their entry at Dartmouth, but in their opportunities for preliminary education before they come up for examination for cadetships.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand the age of entry is going to remain at 13½.

Mr. LONG: For Osborne and Dartmouth, yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Our Education Act when it is in working order will provide a very good education up to the age of 14, and so the best boys will get the best chance

Mr. LONG: It is a question as between 13½ and 14. There is only six months difference between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself. But the real difficulty is not in the education given at 13½ It is in the education given between the ages of 5 and 13½ and it is not only in the school alone. It has to do with the home surroundings of the boy during his earlier years. Those surroundings will help him to be a better competitor for entry at Dartmouth if he has also the
advantage of a good elementary school. My hon. and gallant Friend further suggested that fees should be abolished. But would that be fair to the rest of the community? At present, I believe, there is not in the world a better or cheaper education than the boys get now at Osborne and Dartmouth, and as it will be in the future at the combined college at Dartmouth. The cost is extraordinarily low. You are asking the Treasury to pay the difference. May I point out that at present the difficulty is not in getting cadets, but in finding openings for those who want to be cadets. I have every sympathy with the case put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. A man must indeed have a stony heart if he has no sympathy with those who have served their country, who have died in the service of their country, and have left behind widows and children for whoso future but very slender provision has been made. If anything can be done to improve their position I certainly will most gladly do all in my power. But I am afraid I cannot hold out any prospect of abolishing the fees in this case, nor do I think it would be fair to the community as a whole. Neither is it called for by existing conditions. If we want to attain the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view, namely, the equalisation of chances for all boys of every class coming into the Navy, we must look in another direction. We must look to scholarships or to some other way to make it easier for them to get into the Naval College. That subject in all its branches is being carefully examined by the Admiralty. There is no body more anxious or more industrious in labouring at the question than the Lords of the Admiralty, who are representative of the service and who are the outcome of the existing system. They are as anxious as any civilians are that some solution should be found.
The next suggestion from the Member for Maidstone was that we should develop the apprenticeship system in connection with our engineers, and that there should be more promotion from the lower grades. As regards the apprenticeship system, I cannot say much. This is the first time it has been suggested to me, and my hon. and gallant Friend will realise at once that in this, as in many other instances, the laws and conditions which govern the labour world have a very close bearing
on it. It will be necessary for me to consult with those specially responsible for this branch of Admiralty work before I say anything either for or against the suggestion. I will, however, promise to look into it. With regard to nucleus crews, as far as they go, we have to some extent no doubt abandoned the system. I should not like to speak very definitely on the subject, for my experience has been very short. But I think the chief difficulty arises from the fact that the modern ship is a much more complicated machine than the old ship, and so it is practically impossible to keep her clean and in order with a nucleus crew. The crews that we have now got are reduced crews—three-fifths crews—and we hope with these it may be possible—and indeed officers in command have told me that it is—to keep the vessels efficient. My Noble Friend, the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon), asked as to the position of these ships and whether they could go to sea. Of course, they can go to sea if we can man them by placing men on board for the purpose from other ships. The plan is being considered by the Commander-in-Chief of the Reserve. On the other hand, it must be realised that the object of the Board of Admiralty has been to provide for the country a fleet which is sufficient for our needs and efficient as well. In order to do that, we cannot have more than a certain number of ships in full commission. Between those in full commission and those that are scrapped there must be some system analogous to that of the nucleus cruiser. We have improved on that by the three-fifths crew and also by the system of smaller commands. The Admiral Commanding-in-Chief can co-ordinate the commands in the various home ports and can arrange at times to man special ships and send them to sea.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that all the ships in the Reserve have three-fifths crews?

Mr. LONG: My Noble Friend expects me to be encyclopædic. It is, of course, impossible for me to answer such a question offhand, but I can ascertain the facts if he desires. As far as I know, every ship in the Reserve has such a crew. My Noble Friend went on to talk about flag officers. I want to say at once that I heard with regret—with profound regret—
his remarks on that subject. He is a young Member of the House, and I hope he will not take what I am going to say in bad part. He talked about the desirability of leaving no suspicion of a job. There is no suspicion of that kind except it may be in the Noble Lord's own mind. He is the only person who has ever suggested, either in or out of the House, that the appointment and selection of nags in the fleet is in any way the matter of a job. It is nothing of the kind. We have our Reserve Fleet scattered among the home ports. We have a Commander-in-Chief. The appointment of flag officers to-day has nothing on earth to do with any question of a job. It has been most carefully considered by my naval adviser, and flag officers have been appointed because it is believed they are essential for the proper control and training of the Reserve, and because the principle on which we have tried to proceed in regard to the fleet, in regard to the dockyards, in regard to building, in regard to provisions and stores, and general equipment, has been to cut everything down to what is the absolute point of safety for the present, but bearing in mind so to make our arrangements that rapid expansion will be possible at any time. My Noble Friend will see that the appointment of flag officers is essential to this policy of expansion. If my Noble Friend suggested that these flag officers should be superseded, I would be prepared to come down here and defend their retention in their present appointment, even if I could not justify it on higher grounds. But I do say to this House that the Fleet for five years has done magnificent service, and without it this War could not have been won. The work done by many of these flag officers, of whose appointment my hon. Friend complains, has been work of a strenuous and most laborious kind, and I think they are entitled to have their case considered before they are got rid of. There is no alternative between the policy advocated by the Noble Lord and the Admiralty policy. There is no half-way. You must either get rid of them altogether or keep them in the appointments they now fill. If they are superfluous they should not be kept there. But I can assure my Noble Friend that every one of these appointments has been most carefully considered by the Board of Admiralty, and we have now a Navy as, we believe, well arranged,
so that we have got our post-War Fleet—the numbers of it are stated in the White Paper—and our Reserve, I do not think to-day we have one Admiral down to his junior Rear-Admiral in the whole Fleet more than we require, if we are to keep our Navy properly trained and to have it ready, as it should be, for expansion to war strength. Then there is the question of the command in Egypt. I believe that has just been terminated. There is the Yentze command. That, of course, is a question of river and small craft entirely. At present I think it is under a Commodore, but I believe in future it is to be under a Rear-Admiral. I am not quite sure, however, if a definite decision has been come to on that point.
With regard to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to the "Highflyer" and certain other ships which he described as obsolete, I may say at once that the "Highflyer" is to be replaced as soon as we can conveniently do it by a modern ship. Our object is, of course, to make the best use of the material at our disposal so long as we can usefully employ it, and replace it when required by more modem ships as soon as we have them available. I quite agree with the Noble Lord's criticism on that point. Then my right hon. Friend, the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), asked about certain rumours relevant to Canada. We have no information at all. They have not certainly declined our offer. On the contrary, I was under the impression that they had practically accepted it, although the arrangements had not been completed. We know nothing of the policy of putting down two dockyards, which has been mentioned in the newspapers, but of course we shall ask through the usual channels for such information as we can get. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the work done by Lord Jellicoe. I cordially re-echo his statement as to the immense value of Lord Jellicoe's services in this particular connection and during his most distinguished career, and I hope that out of his most laborious cruise great good will come to the Empire. I firmly believe—and I rest now more on my experience at the Colonial Office than at the Admiralty—that those matters depend rather upon conferences here than upon any attempt at their solution by correspondence between the Admiralty and the Colonial Office. I hope myself that the time will come, and will come very soon,
when there will be co-operation in those matters between the Dominions and the United Kingdom.
My hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Rochester (Lieut.-Colonel Moore Brabazon), asked about submarines, and he showed by his remarks that he shared the view that the Admiralty is a very conservative place, and indicated that he thought we should not suggest that the submarine ought to be abandoned. In this instance he is really doing the Admiralty an injustice. We have never concealed our views that the submarine is a horrible form of naval warfare, and, as far as we are concerned, nothing would give us greater pleasure than that it should be turned down, if that is practically possible. Personally I have grave doubts whether that is possible. It is a subject which was fully discussed at the Peace Conference, and we twice put our views before the Conference. Of course, it must be remembered that it is much easier for small and poor countries to protect themselves by having submarines than by having big battleships or cruisers, or even light cruisers. Therefore, the submarine is a very attractive form of naval protection for countries that cannot afford large and expensive fleets. It really is a question for the small countries rather than for the big, but, beyond that, the question of practical politics comes in. It was urged in the early days, when this was being discussed, that, while a country might build a submarine, that would not matter, because she could not possibly train a crew, and a submarine without a trained crew would be of little use. I am afraid, however, that that is not altogether confirmed. The House will remember that there was a stage in the War when people at the Admiralty, and elsewhere, believed that the vehemence of the German submarine attack would rapidly peter out, because they would not be able to get crows to man the vessels. That did not turn out to be justified by events. They were able to got the men, and, by putting double crews on board, were able to train them quickly. I do not believe it would be practicable to prevent a country from having submarines, if they meant to do so, without the cognisance of those who are responsible for maintaining the conditions under the League of Nations or the Treaty of Peace. No blame, however, attaches to the Admiralty in the
matter. We have put our cards on the table, and should rejoice if it were possible to abolish this form of warfare. As I have said, it raises the question of the position of the smaller countries, who are entitled to be considered, and it also raises the practical question whether it could be enforced. I think I have answered all the questions that have been put to me, and I should like now to take the opportunity of expressing to the House my warm thanks for the generous and friendly way in which, on the previous occasion and to-day, in all quarters, the proposals of the Admiralty for the Navy of the future have been received by the House of Commons.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I venture to make one comment on that part of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman relating to the entry of naval officers. I think some of us heard with some disappointment of the difficulties with which the Admiralty found themselves confronted. One of the things which pleased so many people about the Selborne scheme was that it appeared to make it possible for boys of all means and of all classes to enter and train as officers for the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman said that the boys would have to be trained before they arrived at the point of admission, and he held out no hope of its being possible to remit the fees when they were being trained. I venture to say that that really closes the door on a perfectly free democratic entry for training as officers in the Navy. As the right hon. Gentleman said, when a candidate presents himself for entry into the new College, he is met, first of all, by the difficulty that his training in a public elementary school, if he has been trained there, and his surroundings have not fitted him in the peculiar way which is considered to be necessary. In addition to that, he is met by the difficulty that his parents cannot afford to pay the sum required for his training at Dartmouth, and so you have a double bar against a perfectly free choice from all classes of the community. Of course, I know there are some remissions, but I think many of us feel that it is very disappointing for two reasons. The first is that we believe that the Navy should be on a democratic basis in the interests of all the people. If the officers are drawn from all classes of the people, it is a great safeguard for
the Navy itself, because it means that every class has a direct interest in its affairs, which are so essential for our safety. The second reason is really the more important. Unless you have a perfectly free choice among all classes, you will not get the advantage of the best brains of the country among the officers of the Navy. Many distinguished ornaments of the Navy have come from the most unexpected quarters, and have often been trained at very great sacrifice on the part of their parents. I urge that the inquiries to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as to the means by which it may be ensured that the choice of officers to be trained for the Navy shall be of the widest possible kind, should be prosecuted with vigour and, we hope, in the end, with success.

Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: There is only one point to which I want to refer, and I do not want to press the First Lord for an answer now, because I am guilty of not giving him sufficient notice. I should like to bring forward again the point which I raised the other night, namely, the question of the food allowance. For a long time the same allowance has been given to officers as to men, but, I think in April last, a difference was made, and the officers' allowance was raised to 5s., but the men's allowance remained at something like 2s. 6d. I think the House will agree that the same is necessary to feed a man as to feed an officer, and, therefore, I would ask the First Lord if he will take into consideration the view which I have ventured to put forward, and see if some amendment cannot be made in this regulation, so that, as far as the food allowance goes, officers and men may be placed on the same footing.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: The contribution towards the crews kept in Indian waters by India is £28,000, and that of the Union of South Africa only £18,000. The whole of the contribution of that vast and rich territory of India is only £100,000, and the Navy are supposed to find all that is necessary in men and in ships for maintaining and guarding the interests of India, which extend from Suez to Osaka.
The Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, are all full of Indian trade, and the interests of India are absolutely bound up with the Navy and the men belonging to it. The same is true of the Union of South Africa; their interests are bound up with the Navy and the men in it. In both cases what they contribute towards every item in the Navy is, I think, absolutely inadequate, and compares most unfavourably with what that other great Dominion, Australia, pays for her part in the Navy.
I mention this with a particular object, namely, to suggest to the First Lord a means of raising a little more money for adding to the salaries of officers and men serving in the Navy. There is the question of Income Tax deducted from the salaries of officers. This point was raised the other night by the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon), and I am bound to say I think the Admiralty are not treating the naval officers quite fairly in this respect. In both the Jerram and the Halsey Reports emphasis was laid on the fact that, if the civil rate of Income Tax was to be deducted from their new rates of pay, those rates of pay were inadequate. That was a year ago or more. The cost of living has gone up considerably since then, and if it was necessary to raise the salaries of officers to meet the full rate of Income Tax a year ago, much more is it necessary now. I beg the First Lord to give this matter his further consideration, with a view to improving the salaries to the extent of the difference between the civil rate and the Service rate. I do not think it would require a very large sum, and I have suggested to him how he may find the necessary money for it.
5.0 P.M.
In the memorandum which accompanied the First Lord's statement, stress was laid on the fact that the whole efficiency of the Service depends on its personnel, and upon the contentment of that personnel. There is much cause for want of contentment—I will not say discontent, but want of contentment—on the part of the younger officers, and especially those who are married. I would far sooner see a contented few naval officers than a discontented large number, and if there is any occasion to reduce numbers in what I am about to suggest I suggest that they should be reduced. I referred the other night to the giving of separation allow-
ances to young married officers who are 30 years of age up to the time when their service salary reached £1,000, that is to say up to Lieut.-Commander, and I suggested certain sums, 3s. 6d., 2s. 6d., 1s. ed., and so on, increasing the pay to a total of 8s. 6d., which is exactly the same as is given to the naval officer's brother in the Army of equal rank. The whole basis of pay is responsibility. If it went by age we might have the Parliamentary Secretary making more than the First Lord, and I do not think that would be right. Age is not the standard to go by when salaries are fixed. Therefore a major in the Army, who gets approximately £580, is rightly paid the same as a Lieut.-Commander in the Navy of equal rank and therefore equal responsibility. But the poor naval officer does not get the £155 a year in addition when he marries as does his brother in the Army. This is rather an injustice. I am quite aware of the arguments against it as to economy, but I have suggested two methods of obtaining the money. The first is a bigger contribution from those huge Dominions, which are paying most inadequately for what they get, and, secondly, by reducing numbers rather than have a not wholly contented personnel. I am not introducing any new form of payment in this because every man on the lower deck who is married gets a separation allowance. Why, then, should not the officer do the same? A married petty officer in a submarine is actually getting more daily wage than a warrant officer in the same ship. The gunner in a submarine is getting 19s. a day, whereas the next subordinate chief petty officer is getting 19s. 7d. or thereabouts. That is not quite a proper state of affairs, I would ask the First Lord to give this his most serious consideration, and not to compare the naval officer with the civil servant, as he did the other night. Service in the Navy is very different from the civil service, though I quite agree that is most ardous, and has been during the War, but it is totally different from the case of the naval officer, who is always on a war footing and sees very little of his wife and family.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. Unless something is done for the married officer in the Navy on the lines of what has been
done for the married officer in the Army, you are going to get some of your best petty officers refusing to take commissions when they are married, because it will mean such hardship for their wives. I am talking of young warrant officers and petty officers. I know actual cases of men I have served with and have seen recently. They are better off as married petty officers. They are the cream of the Navy and they will not take commissioned rank because they will be so badly off. It is all right for the bachelor. As long as he remains unmarried he is all right. When I and my hon. and gallant Friend went to sea we were told that the naval officer had no business to get married, and a great many captains would not take a married commander, and certainly would not take a married first lieutenant. Thanks to the submarine and destroyer services coming in and younger officers being in command, and there being therefore more openings for a married man through going into submarine and destroyer service, that rule gradually got broken down, and in the last ten years a number of young naval officers have been getting married out of all proportion to what they did a few years ago. That is a not undesirable state of affairs, especially when we are faced, as we are at present, with a tremendous surplus of girls, who have a very small chance of getting married, and here are men who have to pass a very severe physical test and who belong to a very honourable service, and as things are they are simply precluded from marrying, not by this old service rule that obtained a few years ago, but simply by the impossibility of marrying on their low pay.
The married military officer gets a very substantial allowance, totally 8s. 6d. a day for lodging, food and furniture, which comes to £155 a year. That is a great help to him. Why is the naval officer not treated equally? His case is worse than that of his brother in the Army, who is usually settled in one place, lives in married quarters, and is often not even a dining member of the mess. But a naval officer has to keep up his ship and to have a second establishment at home, where he spends precious little time. He may be doing his three or four years abroad. If a military officer is considered worthy of this allowance, I certainly think the naval officer is even more so, and I
hope the First Lord will give us some satisfaction on this point, because many cases are simply tragic. Young married officers in the Navy are in debt and do not know what to do. The First Sea Lord has taken the matter up, and it is recognised throughout the Service that the case of these young married officers is extremely serious, and the case of the man who is promoted from the ranks for excellent service deserves special consideration. It is not very much to ask. The cry is for economy, but if you are going to economise at the cost of the wives and families of these men, on whom so much depends, that is a very false economy. It can be saved in many other directions which are not so worthy.
I hope we read aright what the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty said in the last Debate with reference to the pay of naval schoolmasters, which gave a great deal of satisfaction to those who have interested themselves in the matter. He said:
We have pressed for the grant to the schoolmaster branch of pay proposed by the Jerram and Halsey Committees. We have modified them slightly but not seriously and they have now been agreed. I am very glad indeed to be able to say so.
I hope the modifications are not serious, because an extraordinarily bad impression has been created afloat at the long delay in granting the increase of pay to the schoolmasters. I hope it will be made soon and will be retrospective and generous, and that we may take literally what the Financial Secretary said. I must mention again the extraordinarily hard case of the old naval pensioner. I hope the door is not finally closed. I am sure I have the support of everyone who knows the case of these old men, and I am sorry I cannot elaborate the real injustice which is now being done.

Mr. LONG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Rear-Admiral Adair) rebuked me for having drawn a comparison between the Civil Service and the Navy. I assure him I did nothing of the kind. I have always maintained that service in the Navy stands quite by itself. A sailor who goes for a cruise is exposed to work and to risks which the ordinary civil servant or soldier is not exposed to. In deciding upon the new rate of pay this was really taken into consideration. I was not comparing the civil servant with the sailor. What I said was that the
hardship of these conditions is due to the increased cost of living. If the rates of pay had been brought up to what they are now under normal conditions of cost of living they would generally be recognised as satisfactory and would have enabled everyone to provide satisfactorily for his ordinary mode of living. Of course, we are faced with abnormal conditions. We know that a sense of gratitude is much more a sense of favours to come than of favours received, but we really thought we had done well for the Navy. When you pay an officer partly by pay and partly by allowances, the allowances are open to revision and abolition, whereas we have no case on record, and I do not think we are ever likely to come across one, where the pay of a rank, once raised, is going to be reduced. Allowances are only temporary, whereas the pay is permanent. My hon. and gallant Friend said we had no right to take age as the criterion. We have not done that. We took age and rank. I have got a long list of officers in the two services, and if you take age and rank, not either alone, the position of the naval officer has been materially improved more than that of the Army officer. What I pointed out the other day is not that there is any comparison to be made, but we have this extraordinary position in existence at present, that you have among all ranks with fixed incomes a tremendous battle to live. The same thing applies to pensioners. There is no comparison between the Navy pensioner and any other pensioner in respect of the services rendered, but you cannot consider these questions by themselves.
If we were to undertake to approach the Treasury for reconsideration of the question of naval pensions, you would have the whole question raised as regards the Army and all other services. Therefore, there is no good in asking the Navy to deal with this by itself. I appreciate fully the hardships which many gallant officers are suffering, but honestly I do not think that in the present state of things there is any prospect of dealing with this question. It would mean opening up, not merely the Navy, but all the services concerned, both civilian and military, and it would mean an enormous addition to our expenditure. My hon. and gallant Friend has suggested to me that by getting the Dominions, especially India, to gives larger contributions, much good might be done. That
is a very valuable suggestion. It does not rest with us, but it is a question for discussion at the Imperial Conference. I hope that at the next Imperial Conference, when we are considering the relations between the Overseas Dominions, including India and the Mother Country, the amount of contribution cither in kind or in cash, will form the most important subject for discussion. I am sure that it will be approached in a most friendly way. My hon. Friend behind asked about the officer's expenses compared with the men's allowances. Of course, the officers' expenses are much heavier than the men's, and this was considered when the money was allotted, but whether the money paid to the men is adequate or not is under consideration. At present I cannot say more. I think I have answered all the points that have been raised. I am sorry that my answers are not more satisfactory, but the situation is very difficult, and is rendered more difficult by the present condition of things, but I can honestly assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Board of Admiralty are profoundly desirous of doing what they regard as their simple duty.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

Resolution [22nd March] reported,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 525,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that this Vote is simply for the number of men, and, as on the last Vote, the question of policy cannot be raised. I wish to draw attention to the number of men voted for one of our outlying posts, which I consider inadequate. I referred to this last year, but the Minister for War was unable to answer. Singapore, in the Straits of Malacca, is an extremely important place, which might be of unrivalled strategical value
in any war in which we might be engaged, yet we are asked to vote there only a battalion of infantry, 140 artillerymen, 20 engineers and a few details. This shows that Singapore is going to be regarded as a third-rate base. I stated yesterday that I considered that the Army was very much too large—which was a matter of policy—but this is a case in which I make the opposite claim. The Straits of Malacca are of tremendous importance and should have more men supplied, and steps should be taken if possible to obtain native troops. I am not aware whether Malay troops have ever been raised. I have been a good many times in Singapore and I have seen the personal bodyguard of the Rajah of Johore. It did not impress me favourably at the time. I never heard of Malays being in any way used in the Army, but I do not see why they should not make very good fighting men with British officers, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the matter is being examined from that point of view. In time of war Singapore would be the utmost point which we should have to garrison, and it is of great importance from the naval point of view. The Navy without a secure base behind it is very much hampered. Singapore is also of tremendous importance from the aerial point of view. It is the meeting point of routes to the East and West and to Australia. I am sorry to see great numbers of men as I consider quite wasted on the Rhine. Of course there may be questions of policy in connection with the Peace Treaty into which I cannot enter, but I think that there should be a redistribution of many of these men who, some of us consider, are not being used to the best advantage on the Rhine and in other parts of the world. The extraordinarily strong home service army, many thousands greater than it was before the upheaval, contains plenty of men who could with great advantage from every point of view sent from their present post to this extremely important outpost of Empire. I am speaking now looking five or six years ahead, and making a few suggestions to avoid blunders in future. I hope that the suggestion which I make in the most friendly and constructive way will be accepted and that this garrison at Singapore shall be strengthened at once. It may be impossible in times of strain later on to
rush troops out there, or it may be a false step from the political point of view to take later on, but now when we are on good terms with all the nations of the world, except those with whom we have just fought, it is a good thing to lay our plans for some years ahead. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot reply now I would suggest an examination of this particular problem to him and his advisers. I am afraid that the present position is the result of an oversight, due to a lack of co-operation between the two services, but if the Army Council do not consider that a larger garrison is required in the Straits of Malacca I am quite certain that both the Air Staff and the Naval Staff, having studied the problem of the Pacific, will point this out.

Sir S. SCOTT: I rise to ask two questions. I would like first to ask the right hon. Gentleman as regards the Yeomanry what arrangements are being made to secure the horses. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to questions put to him in this House, told an hon. and gallant Friend of mine the alterations which he had made in the original scheme. I will rot labour the point, but I would like to ask him where he is going to find the enormous number of which there is need. In years gone by there was a gentleman called Mr. Tilling, who bought horses on behalf of the Yeomanry regiments throughout the country. Who is going to replace Messrs. Tilling I cannot say. I shall be glad to hear what arrangement he has made in regard to mounting these men? I would like also to understand how many of these regiments have announced their intention of becoming artillery and not accepting his offer of remaining as cavalry for two years? On the question of uniform I understand that it is the intention of the Government to re-create pre-war full dress uniform. The whole of the uniform required in pre-war days should not now be required by officers joining. I would like some information on that point. It is possible that the Government will issue some of these uniforms to officers. I believe that in pre-war days the cost of the Foot Guards' uniforms—these are uniforms including the frock coat—was a sum of £287 to the subaltern on joining, and that that of the Household Cavalry was about double. I do not know whether the right hon Gentleman could tell us the cost now of
the uniform suggested by the War Office to a subaltern joining the Household Cavalry or the Foot Guards. Those figures would enable the House to form some opinion as to whether or not it is desirable to have the whole uniform. I would ask him also whether he has based his proposal, especially as regards the Foot Guards, upon the suggestion of the Departmental Committee which was set up by Lord Derby to inquire into the question of Guards' uniform, and also is it the intention to retain the frock coats in the Cavalry and Guards?

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: On page 98 of the Estimates I see that the expenditure for medals this year represents a sum of £2,426,500, and last year £1,760,000. The note says that this represents the value of medals actually issued, and makes reference to the Stock Account on page 86; but on turning to that page I find that the explanation column is blank. I should like to know what is meant by the words "actually issued." Are the medals in stock at the War Office or have they been issued as war medals. If so, it seems unfortunate that they should be issued to the men before the clasps have been settled. Once medals are issued you cannot get them back without loss and delay if they are to have their clasps added. In regard to the question of clasps I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to get that question expedited, because, so far as I can remember, in the summer of 1917 the question was under consideration. After three years one would think that we might have something settled in connection with the matter. It will be a great pity if the issue of the medals is delayed through the authorities not having settled what clasps are to be issued.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The extra burdens thrown on the Army through the assumption of the new responsibilities which I described to the House when I introduced the Estimates cannot be met by us within the limits of our present military establishments unless we carefully prune every other part of our military areas in order to save as many men as possible in aid of these new burdens. Almost the only field which we can glean in this respect is the marine forces scattered about the Empire, the Naval bases, the coaling stations, which spread from the Mediterranean to
the Pacific Ocean. We have secured about 12 battalions by the revision of the garrisons of these coaling stations, and my only hope is that by the aid of this transmission of troops we may to a large extent meet the permanent after-war garrison of the new provinces without any great new additions. Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Singapore, all have come under the scrutiny of the general staff, and reductions have been adopted in all of them, I cannot feel that it is unwise to make these reductions, having regard to the general strategic situation, not viewed from the War Office point of view, but viewed from the general point of view. The power of the Navy, which has no potential antagonists at the present time, and the absence of the great menace of the German fleet, have placed all these military stations in a position for a good many years to come of enormously greater security than before the War.
It is absolutely right that if we have increased expenditure in one direction that we should endeavour to effect corresponding economy in others. Of course, the naval and military authorities must be the judges in the main of such a distribution, and I have been guided by their advice. The hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who is otherwise a great advocate of economy, only contributes one positive suggestion for our discussion, and that is that we should make an increase in the garrison of Singapore. I have no doubt that other hon. Members could also find directions in which they could advocate increases being made in our military provision. If you go over the British Empire, station by station, garrison by garrison, fortress by fortress, there would be very few fortresses that would not find one friend who could not make a case for the retention of an extra unit. Where would our economy be at the end of that survey? I welcome the prudent care with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has addressed himself to this one small spot in the great area of British interests and British responsibilities, and no doubt his observations will be studied by the General Staff; but whether or not they will lead to a reversal of the policy which has hitherto been adopted, it would not be prudent for me to attempt to declare.
My hon. friend (Sir S. Scott) asked about the Yeomanry. I cannot say at this
moment what the choice of those units has been; how many regiments have undertaken to do what we wish in the way of forming these new arms, and how many will avail themselves of the opportunity of taking a couple of years to make up their minds, and of informing themselves first before they make up their minds. I am not going to hurry them. The whole object of this latitude and elasticity was to give them a full opportunity of making up their minds. I know something about Yeomanry regiments and my feeling is that if you said to them, "Raise two batteries of artillery," instead of, say, the Blankshire Hussars, a great many people would not attempt the task at all. The officers might lose interest, or the men might feel that a break had been made in the continuity of their service, and you would not get what you desire. If, on the other hand, you give them an opportunity to consider the matter, and if when they are in camp representatives of the War Office are sent down to explain fully to the officers and men the conditions of the new service, and you let them know what it is we want them to undertake, and the reasons behind the course we propose, and if at the same time you attach to their course of training a section of artillery, so that the Yeomanry can see the kind of work and the kind of life in the artillery, my belief is that they will come along in a very much spontaneous and enthusiastic spirit than if you give no such indulgence. At any rate, that is the course which we have embarked upon, and it is much too early to say how-far it will prove a success. In a number of cases, certainly, Yeomanry regiments have decided to reform themselves on the permanent basis, and the more they do that the better we shall be pleased. But I do not want to make them jump two fences at once if they feel themselves unable to do it. Reconstitution is a great effort, and if the unit is to be absolutely transformed into something quite new and different from what it has been before, it is putting too heavy a burden upon them to ask them to do the two things at one and the same time. This burden I do not want to put upon them if those who have the interests of a regiment at heart think that it is more than they can bear at once.
The mounting of the Yeomanry will, of course, be a difficulty whether as artillery or as mounted troops. The whole ques-
tion of horses is extremely difficult, because the ever-growing introduction of motor and mechanical transport must tend continually to reduce the number of horses available in the country, apart from the special measures taken to maintain their numbers. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary that the whole future of the cavalry arm, whether Regular cavalry or Yeomanry cavalry, should be re-considered in order that they may get to a very large extent on a modern and mechanical basis, as opposed to the old basis on which they have hitherto acted. I should not be prepared at this moment to enter into a detailed explanation of the steps which are being taken to maintain the supply of horses. I quite admit that before the War it was not satisfactory that so many Yeomanry horses had to do so much Yeomanry training in the year, one horse perhaps serving in turn for seven, eight, or nine regiments. I hope we shall be able by the system of boarding out the horses—which is of very great importance, and ought to be carried on to the largest possible extent—to arrive at a better system than that. Still, when the War came, it was found that there were plenty of horses in the country for the immediate purposes of the War, and I do not think that the system to which so many objections are rightly taken of some horses going to regiment after regiment worked out as badly in practice as one would have believed it would do from its obvious defects. Perhaps later in the Session, if my hon. Friend will give me notice beforehand, I will take the opportunity either of laying a paper on the subject, or of making a short statement.
The hon. Member also asked me about uniform. This is an exceedingly difficult question. There is no doubt whatever that a great preponderance of military opinion is in favour of the resumption in a cheap and simplified form of the prewar uniform. The walking-out dress of the soldier is regarded as a matter of great importance, affecting not only his well-being, but his discipline and the general smartness and esprit de corps of the Army. A Committee under Sir Archibald Murray sat for many months considering this matter, and came to the unanimous conclusion that it was essential that in some form or other a full-dress
uniform, which should also serve for walking-out purposes, should be supplied, and that is the view of the Army Council. But we have to consider the expense at every stage, and it is essential before such a change can be made, first of all, that the uniform should be simplified to the last possible point, both by simplifying the whole dress, by pruning it of expensive gold lace, and by reducing the number of articles of uniform as much as possible. It is also necessary that all the existing stocks of khaki should be used up economically and effectively for a certain period of time. In the third place it is necessary that some provision for outdoor allowance should be made to officers now unprovided with this uniform; otherwise a heavy and serious capital liability will descend upon them. We have always foreseen that it would be a very heavy burden. On all these matters we are now in communication with the Treasury.
I propose at an early date to lay a carefully considered written Memorandum before Parliament explaining exactly the steps which we propose to take and the cost in each year. In any case, we propose to take three or four years in bringing about the change, beginning in the first instance with the Guards and Household Cavalry, and going forward gradually as our funds allow. We have also to consider what would be the effect upon the trade of putting forward a very large and complete demand at once for new uniforms, whereas if it is spread over three or four years reasonable prices may be secured, because a regular flow of manufacture will be maintained. It is a subject to which I have given a great deal of attention, and I should like to deal with it by memorandum when the final decisions have been taken in the discussion with the Treasury and the Cabinet. It is rather difficult for me to say here the sort of trade negotiations which will have to take place, but it is perfectly clear that it must be an essential part of the scheme to get the cooperation of the trade on terms fair to them and excluding the element of profiteering, which would certainly spring up if we cast the full demand on a limited trade at one particular moment. We have also studied the subject of the supply of field service kit to officers from a Government institution. Money is taken in the Estimates for this year to
enable us to make a beginning with the supply, at regulation prices, of the field service kit to officers as well as to men from Government stores. That, I think, will be a great advantage, and will help to reduce the burden on the officers. After the original capital expenditure that scheme will be self-supporting.
I come now to the question of the medal and the clasps. As to a blank in the Estimates, I would like to say that the preparation of these Estimates in time was a very remarkable feat on the part of the printers and of all concerned in the War Office, because many of the decisions which govern Army policy have been taken only step by step, and some of them were very long delayed owing to the difficulty of settling matters. In consequence, the number of days left before the Debate were so few that I had great doubts of our ability to place the Estimates in the hands of Members. I said, "Place the best Estimates you can, and if a particular scheme has not been fully developed, let that be presented in blank, and as soon as possible thereafter issue a revised edition." It is not at all true to state that we are paricularly in arrear with the presentation of Estimates.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): We are discussing now only the number of men, and we cannot discuss any other portion of the Estimates.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must apologise. As these various points have been raised I thought it might be for the convenience of the House if I dealt with the general topic.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would not be in order on the Report stage.

Mr CHURCHILL: I will resume my observations at the point at which you have interrupted me, as soon as a condition of order favourable to that discussion is re-established.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1920–21 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Resolution [23rd February] reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £75,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on Account, for or towards defraying the Charges for Army Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps I may be in order now in continuing?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would not be in order to proceed again to discuss the Estimates. We are dealing now with a Vote on Account of £75,000,000, which is due for specific items appearing on the Paper. We are not discussing the Estimates.

Lord H. CECIL: Surely the Secretary of State for War may proceed until he comes to a topic which is not included in the Vote on Account, and then it will be for the Chair to draw attention to it?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only thing I questioned was the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman now thought there was an opportunity to revert to the Estimates.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg your pardon. Now is an opportunity for me to revert to the subject of medals, which forms an important item in the Estimates. This question of battle clasps has engaged for a long time the attention of a Committee under Lord Cavan, and they have recently presented me with their report. The subject is of very great complication. I am very strongly of opinion that there ought to be named battle clasps to commemorate the great outstanding actions of the War in every theatre. On the other hand, so numerous have been those actions that the Committee produced something like thirty battle clasps for France alone, and that reaches dimensions which, both in regard to the capacity of the medal ribbon to carry the clasps and the capacity of the Exchequer to pay for these very costly items, far exceeded the limits which I think are practicable. I have, therefore, remitted the matter again to the Committee with suggestions which will enable them to review the War from a point of view, not of the perspective of war-time, but to some extent in retrospect. One can begin to see now the great outstanding events. I should have thought that about ten named battle clasps ought to cover the War in France and two or three for each of the other theatres. At any rate, that is the kind of objective to which I hope the Committee may now be inclined to work.
Another difficulty is raised by the question, who are to have the clasps, because a clasp is, par excellence, the reward of the fighting soldier. You want so to draw your line and limits as to include those whose duty actually took them under the fire of the enemy and not to include the vast administrative services which, although they are extremely honourable and contributed greatly to the success of the operations, are not services of the kind that people particularly mark when they look with great respect on a row of battle clasps. On the other hand, you have to consider the responsibility of persons concerned in the actions. In my view, risk and responsibility should be the test of the battle clasp—risk in being in the zone of the enemy's field artillery and responsibility in having taken a definite share of responsibility for the planning or execution of a particular military operation. On those lines also a careful investigation is proceeding. It will take a very long time to deal with the clasps. When we have to deal with 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 medals with four or five clasps apiece the figures run to 25,000,000 or 30,000,000. These vary in their permutations and combinations according to the records of service of all these individuals.
Even reduced, as I contemplate, it will be a long, elaborate and costly business. The War medals, with their clasps and other tokens of honour, are the escutcheon of the private soldier, and in every home in the country they will be regarded with the greatest attention by the relatives of those who have fought and enabled us to secure the victory. Therefore, I think that the trouble and the expense, if kept within reasonable limits, will be well repaid by a well-thought-out system of distribution. I cannot undertake that the medals will be kept back until the clasps are completed. It is much better that the medals should go out as soon as they are minted. That alone will take three or four years. The clasps can subsequently be sent to the recipients. Facilities can be arranged for fitting the top clasp on to the bar of the medal. At any rate, it is an operation of the simplest character for which a very small sum of money will suffice, and possibly we might arrange to meet that in some way.

6.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am rather surprised that the right hon.
Gentleman made his extremely interesting remarks before he had heard whether any other questions were to be raised on the Vote which we are now discussing. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman again about a matter to which I received no reply last night. It is the question of the conduct of certain troops who are carrying out very difficult, very unpleasant, and arduous duties in Ireland. I mentioned last night that I bring this matter forward with a good deal of pain. Throughout the War our Army maintained its excellent reputation in its dealings with the civil population wherever it was stationed. We are now continually receiving complaints from Ireland that in the conduct of their military duties, particularly in the raids on private houses, the soldiers do not always behave with that consideration which the people have a right to expect. I repeat that I am most loath to believe anything of this sort against British officers and soldiers. I raise the question in order that the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of denying the charges, or, at any rate, of giving an assurance that the complaints made will be inquired into. Raids are taking place in Ireland at the rate of 500 or 600 a week, or possibly sometimes up to 900 or 1,000. Those raids are made usually in the middle of the night in order that the people who are being searched for may be caught. Sometimes they are made to arrest suspected persons and with the object of finding incriminating documents or arms or that sort of thing. In the very nature of these raids, a great many perfectly innocent people who have no connection with any party in Ireland are subjected to these visits, because the net is spread very wide. Very often the whole raid ends in a blank, and nothing is found. Complaints are occurring frequently that in the carrying out of this extremely unpleasant, difficult and trying duty the troops in certain cases have not behaved in that seemly way which we would expect of the British soldier. Complaints are made of ornaments, pictures and so on being deliberately smashed, and also furniture. I mentioned an instance last night of the raid on the Sinn Fein bank, and I mention it again because I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making a statement about it. The bank, which is not a political but
an industrial bank, was raided. The raids are not complained of, because there is a state of war in Ireland. The floors of the bank were of course pulled up in order to search for documents, and locked doors and cupboards were broken. It is stated categorically that the furniture was deliberately broken and pictures smashed, and that chairs were broken against the walls and ink-pots thrown about. That may seem a little thing, but it is the sort of thing which irritates people beyond measure. It will be remembered when we heard of the outrages by the Germans in Belgium it was the little petty useless acts of sabotage which caused so much annoyance. That sort of charge is being made as to raids in Ireland. I do not accept it, but I mention the matter so that the War Office, through the Financial Secretary, may deal with it in his reply.
We are told that the conduct of the troops in certain of these eases is not what it should be, and that they act with a harshness which is not, perhaps, inexcusable when it is remembered that these men are risking their lives. I hope this charge of breaking furniture and pictures is not true, and that the reports are exaggerated. But if there is anything in it, and any deliberate attempt to annoy people in that way, or to teach them that it does not pay to belong to a particular organisation, then I consider it is simply scandalous and dishonouring to His Majesty's Army, to the whole country, and to this House, if no protest is made. I am sure every hon. Member will admit that. In the same way, there are cases of riots. I have only heard one side of them, I admit. My informants in two cases were Unionists. I refer to the riots at Fermoy and Thurles. Apparently, there were murders and regrettable and dastardly outrages on humble police officers in those two towns. I believe that, in the case of Fermoy, troops marching home from church were fired at. That is utterly deplorable, and no one regrets more than myself or could use stronger language against that conduct or hold stronger ideas about it. But then, apparently, there were reprisals. The troops, we are told—and I hope this statement is exaggerated—at Fermoy went into the town and proceeded to break windows and break into shops and do a great deal of damage to terrorise the people. Men, of course, who are sorry for the loss of their companions will feel extremely
indignant, but it is bad policy, extraordinarily bad policy, if you do not check men for taking what they think to be rough and ready justice against the inhabitants of the town. We may feel as strongly as you like about the provocation given, and I certainly feel strongly about it, but I repeat that it is extraordinarily bad policy to allow this sort of thing, and I think there must have been some laxity in permitting the men to go into the town. The opponents of British rule there, and in Australia and America, say that it was deliberate, and that when they could not catch the murderers they took it out of the townspeople. I honestly cannot believe that, but that is what is being said abroad, and it is doing us a tremendous amount of harm and has far-reaching effects, about which one does not like to dwell.
In the case of Thurles there was the dastardly shooting of a police inspector in the market place, a horrible, cowardly crime. In Thurles there was a similar riot by soldiers with this difference, that the police were with them. The extremists declare that the riot was deliberately caused. I cannot again accept that, but there was apparently a spontaneous outburst of violence on the part of people whose comrades had been done to death. With things as they are between this country and Ireland and between the British people and the Irish people, I think every possible step should be taken to prevent rough and ready justice being done. It sounds all right in theory, but the innocent must suffer in these cases. It is no excuse to say that the innocent have to suffer with the guilty. None whatever. That was the German plea for the sinking of passengers at sea, but the world would not accept, and will not accept, that defence if any hon. or right hon. Member attempts to make it in this case. It is not moral justice, and will not be accepted as such. This is a matter on which I feel deeply, as if affects the honour of the British Army at home.
I cannot refrain from adding a new plea to my request for enlightenment. I refer to the recent events which were mentioned at question time to-day by the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor). I do not, of course, expect my right hon. Friend to have any more information than the Chief
Secretary gave to the House. The other matters I have mentioned in order to get the usual courteous reply. From the contents of the telegram which the Chief Secretary read, apparently a very regrettable incident took place in Dublin last night, in which a soldier was shot and a man and woman, civilians, were killed. When that telegram was read out, certain hon. Members took it upon themselves to cheer at the firing of the troops. I do not think that that cheering is quite defensible.

Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Does this question arise on this Vote?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is in order so long as he confines his remarks to the administration of the War Office—beyond that he must not go.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not strain the point. I wish to dissociate myself from the cheers of Members of this House. The killing of civilians in the City of Dublin or anywhere else by military is too serious a matter to be treated lightly, or for Members to allow their passions to carry them away as was the case at the end of questions to-day. [A laugh.] A certain hon. Member is good enough to laugh now. He should remember we are discussing the deaths of people.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member should address the Chair, and not other hon. Members.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: From the telegram apparently 150 soldiers went to a theatre on the anniversary of a victory of a regiment in France, and certain regrettable incidents occurred. I submit, and this is my point, we should be particularly careful at the present time that no unnecessary provocation is given in any Irish town by the troops that happen to be stationed there. I repeat that I consider the duties which have to be carried out by the British troops there are extremely difficult and extremely distasteful, and no doubt those soldiers have been tried to the uttermost. But Ireland to-day is a barrel of powder, and any display by the troops is bound to lead to indignation on the part of a very large and increasingly large section of the people. It is extraordinarily important that the
attitude of the military in Ireland should be correct, and more than correct. There should be no sort of thing such as coming from a theatre and singing in any way to provoke people. We must realise that they are in a hostile country. It is appalling that it should be so, but there the fact is, and if collisions occur, innocent people on one side or the other are bound to suffer. In this case a soldier, a poor lad, a perfectly innocent and honest and decent man, was shot through the chest, and reprisals were taken, and a man and woman were killed. The woman was 25 years of age. I hope the representative of the War Office will assure us there is no policy of any sort of terrorism or reprisals, in the military sense of the word, being carried out in Ireland; secondly that in the performance of their duties the soldiers and the officers have the strictest orders to behave in the most correct manner and to behave towards the civilian population as they would wish a foreign Army of Occupation, for that is what it amounts to, towards their own womenfolk in their own country; and, thirdly, that in the Irish towns there should be no unnecessary parading or singing of songs which are to us patriotic, but, unfortunately, as things are in Ireland, are, I am afraid, in only too many cases a direct provocation to the Irish. I hope the War Office can assure us on these three points, and that that is the deliberate intention of the War Office, and that the military authorities in Ireland have not in any way come under the sway of that horrible, dastardly, cowardly system known as Castle rule in Ireland.

Major GLYN: I wish to allow no time to pass without trying to give some reply to the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. I think this House should realise that the military duty now carried out by our troops in Ireland is difficult enough without making it more difficult, and if I understand the hon. and gallant Member aright, he wishes the War Office to issue an order that British troops may no longer sing "God Save the King."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member docs not wish to misrepresent me. My words were that troops should be particularly careful in no way to provoke the civil population.

Major GLYN: The point that was raised by the hon. and gallant Member was that no provocation should be made to arouse the ire of the Irish inhabitants. When you have the men of a great and gallant British regiment celebrating their centenary, it will be a poor day when the men do not burst out with the National Anthem, and if it is to be believed—the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, as a member of the Senior Service, I am sure, is not putting it forward—that we have arrived at such a condition that it is wrong for British troops or sailors to do what is constantly done in celebrations of that nature, it is indeed a sad case that British troops are in in Ireland; but I would like to point out this. I happen to know the commanding officer of a battalion in Cork, and the provocation is on the other side. It may surprise the House to know that decent British soldiers can hardly walk out with a girl or anybody else without being insulted by the whole population of Cork. Those men have got to carry out duties which in normal times would be done by the police, and the duty performed by the military in aid of the civil power is always difficult, but under the present conditions in Ireland it is very nearly impossible, and, I think, instead of attacking the action of the British troops, this House ought to realise how great has been the work done by them during this difficult time in Ireland. There has been one perpetual strain on British troops. If you march to church, you go with side arms, and you are shot at from behind walls. If you go to a theatre, you are shot at with revolvers from upper windows of domiciles. When you send out a picket to bring in the men who are unarmed and who have been fired at, in bringing them back more fire is opened from people hiding behind windows, and yet the hon. and gallant Member for Hull is surprised when hon. Members in this House cheer because British soldiers rescued their comrades from the clutches of these people.
I fail altogether to understand the lines on which the Opposition are putting this thing forward. We all deplore the necessity for carrying out this military control or attempted control of Ireland, and, indeed, one must look forward with the greatest horror to the logical conclusion of the present system of military government. We are going along a path which in fairness to the troops and officers must
have the support of the Government, by the enforcement of martial law. It is putting troops in an impossible position, and officers in a worse position. It is difficult for discipline, and it is very hard for those in high command to know where they stand, whether the Government are really going to back them up to the very limit in what they do, and I think no British officer could rest content with seeing his men shot at, or stoned, or having vitriol thrown over them without taking drastic and immediate action, and if he did not take such action he would be, indeed, at fault. It is said: Why was this attack made on the troops when they were going to church, or to the theatre, and why were the men not armed? The moment men went to church armed hon Members would be getting up and asking: Why provoke the Irishmen by marching to church with arms? If they do not go with arms, they are still in the wrong. What is the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite? It seems to me the policy should be to back up and assist loyal and gallant soldiers for carrying out a task of enormous difficulty, which is not made the easier by provocative speeches in the House of Commons, and I would ask that at this particular time, when in Cork, in Thurles, at the Curragh, and elsewhere you have got British troops who may not walk out alone, who have to walk out in pairs or threes, or even larger parties, when you have got 50 per cent. of the police force in Ireland confined to barracks in order to defend those points, and when you have therefore got the police reduced by 50 per cent., I would ask that at a time when it is very hard to carry out the normal care of the country, the Government should not ask troops to do things which have brought them into idicule and which have done nothing but cause laughter to evil-disposed persons in Ireland.
I know of one case where some foolish boys, in September or October last year, put an Irish Republican flag, so called, in a tree in a village, and its shattered remains were flying from this tree until somebody realised that it was an Irish Republican flag. Some days afterwards, I think ten armoured ears rumbled along the road to this little village, and police and soldiers were ordered to go to the top of this tree and bring down the shattered remains of the flag. Obviously,
such a performance is bad for the prestige of the British Army, and perhaps a little more care as to what is a possible thing for troops to be asked to do, and what is not, would make the lot of the troops a little bit easier in Ireland. The lot of commanding officers in Ireland, of Generals in high command, and indeed of naval officers in naval ports in Ireland, does, I think, deserve the considerate desire to help of every Member of this House. There is at present a real danger of something almost worse than we have yet had to encounter beginning in Ireland. If that goes on much further, and if it is encouraged by thoughtless speeches in this House to go any further—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Thoughtless cheers.

Major GLYN: Be they cheers or be they speeches, I think nothing should be done which could possibly be misunderstood, but I want to point out that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull conveyed, possibly wrongly, to my mind the distinct impression that he was not bearing sufficiently in mind the difficulties of our sorely-tried troops and was thinking too much of the desires of those who wish to overthrow British rule in Ireland.

Mr. JAMESON: I am afraid I offended the hon. and gallant Member for Hull by the ghost of a smile flitting across my face. The smile was not at the state of Ireland at the present day, which is not a matter for smiling at all, but I am sorry to say it was at the dramatic manner of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I apologise for it. As for the matter of his speech, I wish to associate myself entirely with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken last. The sympathies of this country are not now directed towards the alleged grievances of Ireland, they are directed entirely towards the troops and the police, who have such a difficult task to perform, and whose lives are exposed to hourly and daily danger in that country. I am in very close touch with the people of my own country of Scotland, and I know that their sympathy with the alleged grievances of Ireland were very thin indeed during the War. People in Glasgow and Edinburgh, just as people in Birmingham and Manchester, were tightening their belts and living upon rations, and they saw Ireland having a
pretty good time of it in comparison; they saw their sons and their brothers fighting in the trenches, and they were quite contented with that state of affairs, and would not have had it otherwise, but they contrasted very poignantly their own lot in these matters with the lot of Ireland. A very different state of mind accordingly has been aroused throughout the country, and I think Ireland should recognise this and beware of a change of feeling in this country generally towards Ireland. Generally speaking, I think it is the duty of everybody in this House, as it is the wish of everybody in the country, that the hands of the authorities should not be weakened, but that they should be strengthened, in Ireland. They do not think that the Government in Ireland errs upon the side of strength at all. If anything, it errs upon the side of weakness. They do not think the military and the police in Ireland are too much protected and too much egged on by the authorities, but they think, if anything, they are too little protected. They admire the forbearance of the police and the military in Ireland, they do not think they have any cause to be resentful at any alleged aggression upon the part of either the military or the police there. Accordingly, I would like to associate myself with the last speaker, and I would send across the message to Ireland that we think the military there have every call upon the sympathy of the British people, and that certainly there is no call for any protest against them.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I think my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and referred to the bad feelings existing between Scotland and Ireland, must have been thinking about the alleged Sinn Fein-German plot, which has never been proved. I regret very much that he should have forgotten, what I am sure the Secretary of State for War remembers, and that is the gallant and heroic work performed by thousands of Irishmen in the trenches throughout France on every front on which the Allies faced the enemy, and I think it is very regrettable that any hon. Member should cast any disparaging remarks on the work performed by that nation in the gallant cause of the Allies. I am sure nobody on this side of the House or the other has any contempt or any bad feeling towards the troops in Ireland in these instances about which we have been
talking. We all realise that they are simply carrying out the policy of the Government and the orders given them, and when we criticise the work which these troops perform, the murders, if I may use the term, which they are forced to commit, it is not in any way reflecting on the personal gallantry or heroism of those individual men. We realise that they are carrying out orders not less gallant than the orders which they carried out with the same loyalty in Franco and elsewhere. What we criticise in criticising the action they perform is the policy they are carrying out, and I associate myself entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in deploring the cheer which greeted the statement at question time concerning the killing of civilians. It is most regrettable that such an expression of feeling from the Legislative body in this country should go out to our people in Ireland. We must remember the incidents which have incited the people to feel as they do towards the British troops.
Let me give one example. Last week a raid was carried out on the house of a very gallant officer, Major Erskine Childers, an officer who has served his country on the sea and in the air for the whole duration of the War. His name has been mentioned in despatches, and in every conceivable way his character was spotless and bore no stain at all. Last week, in order to examine his house, an armed tank arrived outside his address in Dublin in the middle of the night. Armed men emerged from that tank, entered his house, compelled his wife to leave her bed, entered the nursery, woke up the little children, pulled all the ties on the floor, and generally disturbed the household. If that were done in any other civilised country, surely we should be entitled to have it done in a manner in which the people should not be so grossly disturbed. Surely it would be possible for these incidents to be carried out in the daytime without the necessity of armed men entering people's drawing rooms and offering sacrilege to the premises of individuals; and I am sure if the House realised the effect these incidents are having on the British public they would not laugh when British soldiers murder and kill poor Irish civilians. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame," and "Withdraw."] There might be in
that crowd in Ireland men who have committed murder, but that is no reason for firing indiscriminately on a mass of Irish citizens who have been excited and inflamed by the policy for which the present Government is responsible, and I associate myself entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for Hull in deploring that such an expression of opinion should go forth to Ireland at the present day. I will not continue the question of Ireland to-night; we shall have a full opportunity next week on the Government of Ireland Bill.
I wish to draw attention to a matter which was referred to yesterday, and to which no reply has yet been received from the Government. I refer to the question of military missions in foreign lands. It will be seen that 2,226 men are employed on military missions in different countries throughout Europe. Many of us here are of the opinion, and we have very good reason for thinking, that some of these missions, which are to be found in Esthonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland—in fact, in almost every country in Europe—are employed, not in advising the local Government in dealing purely with military events, but in supporting the most reactionary elements, the most conservative parties which are to be found in those countries. In the Debate last night, I ventured to quote certain examples concerning the work of these missions in Esthonia and Latvia, and said that the military mission in Latvia was originally responsible for the creation of that force which created the coup d'état in Germany last week. Since that time another incident has come before my notice. At question time to-day I asked the Secretary of State for War a question concerning General Holman, who is Chief of the Military Mission attached to General Denikin, and I ventured to call his attention to a manifesto which had been issued by General Holman to the Kuban Cossacks—a manifesto which purported to be a message from His Gracious Majesty the King. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State for War informed the House that this manifesto had been published without the authority and approval of His Majesty's Government. I would like an assurance that all these acts of military missions throughout Europe—acts which have been carried out with miracu-
lous unanimity so far as supporting reactionary conservative elements is concerned—have all been carried out without the knowledge and cognisance of the British War Office. It is very difficult for many of us who watch the trend of politics in those countries to believe that is really the case; but I should like to be assured that these military missions are employed on purely military work, and are not used in any shape or form for political purposes or political propaganda. I hope my right hon. Friend will take an early opportunity of publicly conveying to the Kuban Republic that this declaration was carried out and presented without the approval of His Majesty's Government.
There is one small domestic matter which I wish again to bring before the Secretary of State for War, and I hope that he will see his way to reply to it. I refer to the question, which was not answered yesterday, concerning the Guards' uniform. It is a matter which is exercising the minds of numbers of young officers who joined the Guards during the War. It is a matter which exercises the minds of their parents to a very much greater extent. The expense of providing Guards' officers with the old pre-war uniform amounts to something like £300; and there has to be taken into consideration the very large annual expenditure required to keep up this very gaudy uniform. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give a decision on this matter at a very early date, and reassure those young officers and their parents that there is no intention on the part of the War Office to make them pay this enormous amount for a uniform which is not necessary, at all events, for years to come. If the khaki uniform was good enough for the War, it is quite good enough for the Peace, for some time to come.

Dr. MURRAY: I have come into contact with some Territorial officers, I find they are very sadly disappointed about the rate of recruiting for the Territorial Army. Of course it is too soon to assess the position of things, but there is one point on which they seem to be unanimous in regard to what is affecting recruiting, and that is the question of holidays. The men will be expected to spend a fortnight in camp, and most of these men will be deprived of holidays with their families, which, I think, many of these men have
not enjoyed for years. If the War Office could arrange that the married men, especially, could be allowed an extra week in some way or other, it would, I believe, from the information of men well entitled to speak on behalf of the Territorial Force, facilitate matters very greatly, and make recruiting for the Territorial Army much more enthusiastic than it is at the present time. There is certainly no rush in the Territorial Army at present, except, to a certain extent, for the London Scottish, which one would expect. If this matter of holidays could be arranged, I think there would be a greater rush to the Territorial Army.
There is another point I wish to mention. There has been a rumour in the papers recently—I do not believe it myself—that it was the intention of the War Office to abolish the kilt. I know that is not the intention of the War Office, but it has somehow or other got into the London papers, and has percolated into the provincial papers and caused some searching of hearts. They do not make tartans or kilts in Dundee, but even there the Secretary of State for War would hoar of it, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson), who knows something about the kilt, would not, I think, like to go back to his constituency if that report were to be true.

Colonel YATE: I should like to say a word regarding the question of the cost of uniform. I hope for the new uniform there will not be the enormous expense incurred by young officers that was incurred previously. The other day I heard of a young officer in the Royal Horse Artillery who went to a tailor and was told they could not make a jacket under £120. That sort of thing, I hope, is going to be put a stop to by the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever walking-out dress is given to the Army—and I quite agree the Army should have a walking-out dress—I ask that the dress should be made simpler, and that the officer's full dress should be without the gold lace which is so expensive at the present time, and that the expense of £120 should be abolished once and for ever. Then, there is the question of the new mess dress. Although the old red mess dress looked very nice on young officers, in all the countries of Europe that dress is looked upon with great dislike, and the further East you go the greater is the dislike
to it. I would ask that the new mess dress should not be so expensive, but that there should be some simple and plain new dress provided without great expense to the officers. Consideration should be given to the cutting down of gold' lace, and, indeed, lace of all sorts. Some people very much disliked the old cavalry mess dress buttoning tight up to the throat. I do not think any of us like it now. I trust these points will be taken into consideration, so that great cost may not be incurred by young officers.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I did not intend to join in this Debate, and I was unaware until I entered the House that my hon. and gallant Friend on my right (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) had spoken on the conduct of the military in Ireland, or that it was to be one of the subjects of debate. I must say that I feel so seriously the tragic nature of the situation in Ireland, a tragedy, I am afraid, growing more tragic every day, that I hesitate to use any language at all, lest any words of mine should aggravate a situation already aggravated enough. But I may be allowed to make a few observations as to the complaint raised yesterday, and I will make my language as careful as I can in view of the situation in Ireland. St. Patrick's Day of this year was one of the saddest in the history of Ireland. Certainly it was the saddest I have seen during my life. I do not suppose that even the criticisms of the hon. and gallant Member, the Member for Hull, severe as they were, will cause any more misgivings and searching of heart than are likely to occur in respect of the situation. What happens? Almost every day we are saddened by a murder or crime as terrible and mysterious as that of the murder of the Lord Mayor of Cork. Even to-day we heard from the Chief Secretary for Ireland an account of another serious event in Dublin, in which, according to his statement, the soldiers were assaulted and fired at by the crowd. Although that telegram did not mention it, I am afraid that the matter was still more serious, a man and a woman, civilians, being killed. Does not this long tale of almost daily tragic events suggest serious reflections to hon. Members?
I have to take this opportunity of saying this in regard to the tragic event in Cork. Yesterday I asked a question of the Chief Secretary in regard to the entrance of the military and the ran-
sacking of the house of the late Lord Mayor of Cork shortly after the crime was committed. I suggested that this sudden incursion, when the widow and family must have been in a state of both mental and physical collapse, showed a certain lack of consideration. I addressed some words which reflected, though I did not give my reasons, what I thought was one of the most serious factors in the situation at Cork—the feeling of almost universal morbid suspicion which reigns in that city; for certainly it is a very serious fact that a man, not only a Sinn Feiner, but a leader of Sinn Feiners, who was elected to his position as Lord Mayor of Cork by the Sinn Fein majority in the Council, and who several times had been imprisoned because of his opinions, should be the victim of assassination. I ventured to urge what I considered merely a warning to the Chief Secretary that proceedings of this kind in the atmosphere of suspicion and excitement prevailing imposed upon the authorities the greatest care for themselves, for their own protection, and for the appeasement of the public mind against any possible misconstruction of motive or action. I am sorry to say the Chief Secretary misinterpreted my observations to mean a charge against the soldiers who went to the house. He said that the soldiers were only doing their duty in obeying the commands of their officers. I did not intend to make such a charge against the soldiers, and if my language was so interpreted it was misinterpreted or my words did not convey the idea I had in my mind. I am glad to inform the House that since I made that statement yesterday about the visit of the military to the house of the late Lord Mayor a letter of complaint has been sent by the Bishop of Cork simultaneously with a strong denunciation of the crime, and a letter in reply has appeared—an extract from which I find in the evening papers—from the Major-General commanding the soldiers in Cork. The Major-General says that
the entrance into the house was carried out in pursuance of orders and that the officer in charge was facilitated in his search by the occupants of the house.
That disposes of the suggestion which naturally occurred to me that this visit was resented. The Major-General goes The Major-General says that:
The officer left expressing his regret to the residents at having to perform his duty
at such a time and with the knowledge of the circumstances. The Major-General said that he regretted that the action of the military should have been construed as lacking in respect for the dead and the house of mourning.
I think that explanation reflects great credit on the officer who wrote it, and I am sure I accept it. May I, however, ask this question: Is this the kind of duty that soldiers ought to be asked to perform? I do not know what the law is upon the matter. I think I know what the Secretary of State may say, that there is some difficulty in a policeman doing this duty, and that a policeman had been murdered on that very night. I think everybody regrets, and those who love the Army regret it most, that the soldiers should be employed in this work, which is really the work of the police and not of the soldiers. An hon. Member intervening in this Debate criticised rather severely my hon. and gallant Friend, but it seemed to me that he missed the whole point of this Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend gave several instances in which, under great provocation, the soldiers, and sometimes the police, more or less had run wild, lost their tempers and their heads. That happened at Fermoy, Limerick and Thurles. In one instance shots were fired into houses, and the lives of citizens endangered, also the lives of women and children. Not only were the lives endangered of persons sympathetic with or guilty of crimes, but the lives of people as innocent of either association or sympathy with these crimes as any Member of this House.
It is no answer to the charge to say that criticism such as my hon. and gallant Friend uttered goes beyond the necessities of the case, and to say that we must not weaken the arm of our soldiers; that if we utter any criticism of their actions, whether good or bad, we are weakening their arm and encouraging the forces of disorder in Ireland. Such an attitude, I say, is a fundamental misconception of the spirit of our institutions. It vitiates all the speech of the hon. Gentleman. Whatever provocation soldiers may have received, soldiers ought not to be allowed to break their bonds of discipline. The Chief Secretary, I think, will not take up the position of the hon. and gallant Member. I view with the greatest alarm the tendency, which is not absolutely absent from this House, to regard force,
in view of possible very perilous conditions in England as well as Ireland, as its own justification. Without discussing its merits or conditions, when the tragedy at Amritsar was announced, when it was said that the soldiers had broken loose from discipline, and, answering perhaps a provocative and perilous attack, loosed themselves in a moment from the bonds of discipline, there was a, tendency, I say, in some quarters to acclaim that as the right thing.
7.0 P.M.
That is the gospel of force. That is the gospel of Prussianism. That is the devilish thing this War was fought to abolish. I pray God we shall never be allowed to introduce into this country, under any provocations, the spirit of militarism which justifies such things as happened at Zabern in Germany before the War, and led to one of the greatest catastrophies that ever happened. I would ask the House to take two things into consideration. I am sorry my hon. Friend opposite made the illusion he did to the attitude of the people of Glasgow towards the Irish. Let me say in reply that there was no city in the United Kingdom which had a more honourable record for sending volunteers—before conscription—to the War than the city of Glasgow. I have to add that foremost amongst those who enthusiastically went to the flag without compulsion were the men of my own race. I read one day a statement in a Scottish paper with regard to the losses in a well-known Scottish regiment, and the first name was William O'Brien, the second John Murphy, and the third Michael O'Connor. Those who know the composition of Scottish regiments know that this is true. What is the position of the Army in Ireland today? An Irishman waking up in Ireland is able to rise pretty early because he is not allowed to walk the streets of Dublin between the hours of 12 and 5. During those hours an Irishman finds the streets of the capital of his country filled with a large body of soldiers wearing helmets, and driving tanks with all the paraphernalia of war. Why are they there? They are there, in the eyes of patriotic Irishmen, as representatives of the armed forces of this strong country to keep down the national aspirations of the people of Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know it will be said that they are there
to keep order, but the origin and foundation of all the disorder there is the denial to Ireland of her national aspirations.
Where is all this going to end? I am afraid, and I say it with reluctance and misgivings and horror, we have not seen the end of this most tragic act. Can the Secretary of State for War say that the policy for which he has only corporate responsibility as a member of the Government has done anything to create order and not disorder, and can he say that the presence in Ireland of his army and equipment has made the country less crimeless? Is it not a fact that in Ireland the more the forces of the Crown have been imposed upon Ireland the more terrible has been the record of crime and disorder in that country? I make this most earnest appeal to the House. Next week we are about to enter upon a discussion of the measure which, its authors declare, is intended to bestow upon Ireland free institutions. I will not for the moment discuss their intentions, and I will discuss next week how their intentions are realised or falsified by their proposals. I put it to the House, what chance is there of any proposals of this kind succeeding in Ireland as long as you have disorder and crime there, accentuated by repression? What chance is there in such an atmosphere of anything like a fair consideration or acceptance of any proposals the Government may make under those conditions?
I make an appeal to the Government and to the House to bring this policy in Ireland to an end, and trust the Irish people. Leave to the Irish people the guardianship not only of their own liberties, but the security of the lives of their fellow citizens. Above all, I make this appeal to Englishmen rather than to Irishmen. The House sees how the world views the present conditions in Ireland. There is not a country in the world that has approved of the policy of the Government in Ireland. Grave and terrible disaster, in my opinion, has come upon England and upon France and upon the world by the unfortunate attitude which has been arrived at in the United States with regard to their responsibilities for the future of Europe and the League of Nations. I trace a good deal, though not all, of that disaster of England and America separating as the defenders of the democratic liberties of the world to our militarist ideals, and if England and
America separate on that great issue as the guardians of the future liberties and peace of the world, then I say that the blood of our heroes has been shed in vain, and if the War has been won, peace has been lost. You must get into your minds the horrible catastrophe towards which Ireland and England are approaching, and the abyss into which you are sinking. For these reasons I beg you to view the Irish question a little more from the point of view of Irishmen, and you should do your share towards bringing about that peace between Englishmen and Irishmen which should be the ideal of every patriotic Englishman.

Colonel R. F. PEEL: After listening to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I thought for the moment we had reached the Third Reading of a Bill which we are to discuss next week. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member opposite into the question of the position and future of Ireland, but I wish to get back to the question of the Army. I will simply say that I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will do much better if they will use their endeavours to bring about good-will in Ireland, because we can do something with good-will if we pursue it. I want to ask the Secretary for War if he can tell me anything about the future of the special reserve which contributed something like 2,000,000 men to the Forces of the Crown during the War. They seem to have been treated with very scant references to their services by those who have spoken on behalf of the War Office. The authorities at the War Office know that if it had not been for the men sent out from the special reserve in the early part of 1915, before the New Army came into being, no one can say what the later stages of the War would have been. In 1916 the Secretary for War actually gave six lines to the special reserve on the Army Estimates, and that is the sort of recognition these men received from the War Office.
I want to know what it is proposed to do this year with regard to this force, I notice in the Army Estimates there is a reference to the special reserve, and I should be glad to know from my right hon. Friend whether it is proposed to keep all the battalions or do away with any of them. All these battalions have a long history of service, and there are also
the extra reserve battalions. Remembering how necessary these men were in time of war, I hope the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind to retain all the battalions of the special reserve. I received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary some time ago in which he said it was not likely that they would do away with any of these regiments then in existence. I would like to know whether he has any thought of these battalions training as dêpot battalions, or whether he intends to go back to the old regimental system which existed before the War. If he will assure those who have taken such great interest in the formation of this force for many years on this point, I shall be very greatly obliged to him.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I exhausted my right to speak at the beginning of this discussion, not realising that it would be so long. Therefore, it is only by leave of the House that I can answer the questions that have been put to me With regard to what fell from my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel R. F. Peel) about the Special Reserves, the new arrangement which we have made assigns a definite position to the Special Reserve battalions in the Army. There is approximately one to every link battalion of the regiment. For every two battalions of the Regulars, there is a Special Reserve battalion as a draft finding unit, which can be used in the course of war for expansion. We have decided to maintain about 74 or 75 of these battalions That implies that the extra Special Reserve battalions will be eliminated, but the Special Reserve battalions will be preserved. Of course, here and there there may be an extra Special Reserve battalion which for special reasons it may be desirable to keep in existence It is proposed to revive the old name of Militia which was so popular with them, and, although they did not fight to any large extent as units, nevertheless they rendered enormous service in training the drafts. These units will be preserved in their integrity, with their traditions and belongings, and regimental associations, and they will take a permanent part in the post-war Army. I think that will be satisfactory to that very large class of hon. Members who take an interest in the force and in the old Militia
I have observed that the Debate has shown several tendencies to drift away
from a placid military atmosphere into the far more bellicose area of Irish administration. But I feel that no satisfactory Debate upon Irish administration can take place on the Army Estimates. It is my duty, it is the duty of those who hold my office to supply these troops to the various Governments, in India, Egypt, or Ireland, or wherever they may be, which are needed for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and the War Office has responsibility for the conduct of those troops. But so far as the Department is concerned they are not the executive authority charged with their direction on the spot, and if a Debate of that kind were to be originated it would, I think, be much more satisfactory to both sides in this controversy if it were conducted on the Vote for the Chief Secretary, for the Lord Lieutenant or on some general Motion which would permit of a discussion. I certainly do not wish to take up the point which has been put by the hon. Member for Leyton East (Lieut.-Colonel Malone), and by the hon. Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) in a manner calculated to arouse and provoke discussion on these Estimates.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) speaks from a whole life work in the cause of Irish government, and of improving, I can justly say, the relations of unity between Great Britain and her sister island. He spoke with remarkable moderation and restraint, although his feelings on this subject are known to be of a deep and passionate character. He said not a word calculated to inflame the feelings or offend the opinions of other hon. Members, and, in reply to him, I would gladly say that the War Office and the Government have no approbation whatever for violent and lawless measures, from whatever quarter they may come or under whatever Provocation they may be originated. At the same time, my hon. Friend must not overlook the extraordinary provocation to which the troops have been subjected in Ireland. The hon. Member for East Leyton spoke of the rising in Fermoy. Everyone knows what had happened the day before in Fermoy. Two soldiers who were returning from Church had been set upon and killed, and the coroner's jury had brought in a verdict which practically expressed no condemnation of that crime.
In these circumstances, it is very regrettable, but not wonderful, that the anger of the troops was violently excited, and for a short period, in which I am glad to say no life was lost, they broke the bonds of military discipline and control and inflicted a great deal of damage on the town. It is not only a very wrong, but a very dangerous thing to shoot soldiers who fought in the War, who have come home from the War expecting to have a period of rest and peace, and who do not expect to be murdered from behind hedgerows in a civilised country by a population for whose defence they risked their lives during the War.
I think also my hon. Friend, in reading out the letter written by the Major-General in command at Cork to the Catholic Bishop, about the search at the residence of the late Lord Mayor of Cork, answered to a very large extent some of the charges eagerly preferred by the hon. Member for Leyton East, and the hon. Member for Hull, because that letter showed, as the hon. Member admitted, that the Major-General on the spot was animated by sentiments of the utmost consideration, and was endeavouring to discharge his duty in a manner which would commend itself to all right-feeling men, completely removed from any scene of excitement or passion. I notice my hon. Friend even commended this letter. I believe that the letter is very representative of the spirit in which the army in Ireland is being controlled by its military chiefs. Every endeavour is being made by them to discharge their duties with the least possible cause of complaint or irritation to the population among whom they are forced to dwell.
If I turn from the tone of the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division to that which animated the speeches of the hon. Members for Central Hull and Leyton East, I think the House will see that in their two statements they have at any rate unfolded a perfectly clear, plain point of view. Their point of view, which they have abundant opportunities of displaying, is to attribute the worst vile motives and intentions to their fellow-countrymen in every quarter of the world. It is furthermore to express a servile and fulsome adulalation for the forces of treachery, rebellion, and Bolshevism in every quarter. The hon. Member for Leyton
East has even gone so far as to traduce the memory of a brother officer (Captain Crombie) who was murdered by the Bolsheviks at Petrograd. A similar spirit animates him. With a consistency worthy of Lenin himself, with a supreme and devastating logic worthy of the highest manifestation of Bolshevism and intellectualism he has proceeded in every quarter of the world to apply similar treatment and a similar standard to educated British officers and men, where-ever they may be brought into contact with the very different events which, in this melancholy and turbulent period, fall so often to their experience. I think, in regard to these two hon. Members, all that is necessary is that they should have an opportunity of making their opinions perfectly clear and perfectly plain. I am certain no words and no arguments are needed from me, or from other hon. Members, to elicit in an effective manner the considered opinion of the House. I would venture to suggest to the House that as these military matters have now been under discussion for a long time, and as these more exciting topics are really extraneous to those with which we are dealing at the present time, the House will perhaps permit the Air Estimates to come on now in order that progress may be made with that other important branch of our defensive forces at an early stage of the evening.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the question of the Guards' uniform, which is agitating the minds of many hon. Members?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I propose to lay a full memorandum on this subject. I made a considered statement upon it when my hon. Friend was not in the House, and I indicated the broad general lines we intended to adopt. I stated that we accepted the principle of an outfit allowance for the officers.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any demands have been received from Ireland for an increase in the number of armed forces, and, if so, will it be granted?

Mr. CHURCHILL: From time to time demands are made by the Irish Executive for reinforcements of troops, but no large
demand has been made during the last few months. If any demand is made, I am glad to say I am in a position to meet it most fully.

Dr. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any truth in the rumour published in some papers that the kilt is to be abolished?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity to deal with that rumour. There is absolutely no intention whatever of abolishing the kilt. Certain Highland regiments may be converted into Engineers, but if they are called Highlanders the kilt will be retained. I have been in treaty with various representative bodies in Scotland, and I hope shortly to announce arrangements in regard to Scottish battalions, which will include several famous battalions of the 51st Division, which I hope will be deemed to be generally satisfactory.

Orders of the Day — AIR ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

Resolutions [11th March] reported,

1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 29,730, all ranks be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,661,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,005,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921."
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,172,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921."
5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,647,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921."

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I should like to ask the Secretary of War, or the Air Minister, a question with regard to the collapse of one of the greatest Air Companies in Great Britain; I mean the Airco Company. I understand that the chairman of the company has resigned through lack of support, and has disposed of his company to the Birmingham Small Arms Company, who will utilise the workshops and machinery for other purposes. I need not point out what a very serious state of affairs this will bring upon the aircraft industry in this country. He realises, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War realises, how much we are indebted to Mr. Holt Thomas, the managing director of this company, for the part he has taken in building up, not only the Aircraft Manufacturing Company, but British aviation in general. It was largely due to the personal energy and initiative of Mr. Holt Thomas that aviation was started in this country. The efforts devoted to aviation by Mr. Holt Thomas some eight or ten years ago will be remembered when the War Office and the Admiralty adopted such an apathetic attitude towards the air. I rise merely to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any indication as to the policy of the Air Ministry towards this question. May I hope that some steps are being taken to prevent the collapse of one of the greatest firms this country has ever seen?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Tryon): I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this question. We fully realise its importance. The Advisory Committee, which is a very strong Committee, is going into the question of civil aviation. It sat to-day, and it is going to sit again on Frday, and we hope that in a very few days we shall be in possession of its Report. We hope, when we get the Report, to consider at once what the Committee recommend, and we intend to lay before this House, I hope within a month, a full statement of the action which the Government propose, As that action necessarily has to be decided upon after
the Report comes, and as it will then have to come before the House of Commons for discussion, I do not think it is very desirable at the present moment to go at length into proposals which are not yet formulated. This Committee is engaged in very important work, and, as they are men of great distinction in connection with aviation, I think it is only fair to them to say that, when the Secretary of State for Air the other day stated that civil aviation must fly by itself, he referred to the ultimate way in which it should be sustained. He did not mean to bar any Government action that may be found necessary in order to keep civil aviation going during the present very difficult year which follows the end of the War, and before the whole thing can be built up again. Therefore, his statement refers to the buoyant and active way in which civil aviation should, as he said, fly by itself later on, on a sound commercial basis. It in no way bars financial or any steps from being fairly considered when the Committee recommends them in the course of the next few days.

Mr. JODRELL: I hope I am in order in drawing attention to a matter connected with the aerodromes in the Eastern counties. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that there are three large aerodromes—

Mr. SPEAKER: That discussion will come on the fifth Vote: "Works, Buildings, Repairs and Lands."

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. JODRELL: It happens that, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, there are three large aerodromes. Two of these have been or are about to be abolished, and the material is being got rid of, but there still exists a large and very important aerodrome known as the Bircham Newton Aerodrome. That aerodrome, it is true, was built, as the most recent of these aerodromes, at a time of great pressure in the War, and, therefore, every allowance can be made for the hurried manner in which many of its buildings have been erected; but the material of which the quarters of both
officers and men are constructed needs very earnest attention on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend. The bricks of which they are built are the 4½-inch brick, and they are covered on either side with a kind of cement, which was put on in such thin quantity and quality that, in heavy rain, the weather drove clean through the walls. The House, perhaps, is not aware of the extremely exposed condition of some of these aerodromes. This particular one is situated on very high ground in the county of Norfolk, within 5 miles of the sea, in a climate and on a soil which has singular qualities for absorbing damp. The houses and cottages which comprise most of the villages in the neighbourhood are built with very thick walls, and with every kind of contrivance to keep out the damp that comes in in the winter, including, very often, the planting of trees close to the north side of the house. All this is entirely out of the question in an aerodrome. The wood which occupied the site of the Bircham Newton Aerodrome had, of course, to be entirely taken away, and the buildings, as I have said, were erected very hurriedly.
In October last there came a spell of cold weather, such as is very unusual even in those parts of Norfolk, and it may be within the memory of hon. Members of this House that there was snow and a driving storm of unusual severity. Not only did the water come through the walls of the aerodrome, but there was immediately an epidemic, from which both officers and men suffered severely. There were upwards of a score of cases of pneumonia. The local people did their utmost to find accommodation elsewhere for the officers and men, some of whom had come from very warm climates in the East. The very stars in their courses seem to have fought in favour of the Air Ministry during this winter, for we have had the mildest winter ever known. Had it not been for that, I would venture the suggestion that it would have been difficult to keep that Air Force together at all in those buildings. I desire, therefore, once more to draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to this matter. I drew the attention of the Government to it through his predecessor, and the right hon. Gentleman had the matter in hand just at the time when he resigned his office, I feel sure that, before this summer is over,
steps will be taken to obviate the discomfort and danger which both officers and men would have to suffer should they have to spend another winter in buildings such as this.

Major TRYON: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing this forward. The position illustrates the difficulty, which is not confined to the case of which he speaks. In order to provide shelter during the War, buildings of a temporary kind were run up in those often bleak and uninhabited districts to which the Air Force had to go in order to find suitable ground. We are doing all we can to improve those buildings during the coming winter. I have myself been down to see them, and fully realise how important it is, and I sincerely hope that before next winter we shall be able to improve matters. It must, however, be remembered that this was done during the War, when it was not possible to provid permanent buildings of a substantial character for all those people who were hurriedly brought together for training in these places. It is, therefore, a survival of War conditions. I hope we shall be able to get on, and that before very long they will be a thing of the past.

Ordered, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide during 12 months for the discipline and regulation of the Army and Air Force and to repeal certain provisions in Section 12 of the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917; and that Mr. Churchill, Major Tryon, Mr. Long and Sir A. Williamson do prepare and bring it in.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,

"To provide, during 12 months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force and to repeal certain provisions in Section 12 of the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow and to be printed.—[Bill 54.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

Resolutions [18th March] reported,
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, the sum of £28,727,126 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
2. "That, towards milking good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, the sum of £353,984,850 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baldwin.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending 31st March, 1920 and 1921," presented accordingly; read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow and to be printed.—[Bill 55.]

COAL MINES (EMERGENCY) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. ADAMSON: The Bill which the House is considering in its Third Heading stage is of very great importance to the whole of the people of this country. The future of the coal trade is of vital importance so far as our commercial and industrial development is concerned. Miners are sometimes blamed for pushing their interests in connection with the industry to the exclusion of the general interests of the country, but that is an erroneous point of view. They have never taken up a position of that kind. They realise that the industry is of such vital importance to all sections of our people that any proposal in connection with it concerns the whole people of the country, and not a section of them. It is perfectly true that the miners take a deep interest in the industry they follow. That is a very natural thing, and one realises that they pay a heavy price for the part they play in it. It is only necessary to mention facts like these, that we have four miners killed every working day and that there is one of their number more or less seriously injured every three minutes, to convince one that it is a very natural thing for them to take a keen, close interest in anything that concerns the industry. At the same time, no one recognises more clearly than they do that the
future of the industry is a national and not by any means a sectional matter.
The Bill disposes of millions of money—and therefore ought to be of interest to every citizen of the country. The members of the Labour party voted against the Second Reading because it gave too large profits to the mineowners. So far as we can ascertain, it gives an aggregate pre-War standard of £22,000,000. In addition to this very substantial sum, there was an allowance in the name of interest on increased capital, amounting to £4,000,000. That item has been subjected to considerable criticism. Those who took part in that criticism were very anxious to know if there had really been such a large amount of increased capital put into the industry during the progress of the War as would justify the setting aside of £4,000,000 to meet the interest on it. We who represent mining constituencies and are in close contact with the industry, were not aware that such a large amount of new capital had been invested in it. We are rather inclined to take the view that a considerable amount of it has been created through the payment of bonus shares to the holders of colliery stock. In the district that I represent, during the past two or three weeks we have had one company paying from its reserve fund one bonus share for every two ordinary shares, and in that way they have increased the capital to a very large extent without, at the same time, paying in any fresh capital. We fear that the item of £4,000,000 set aside to meet the interest on new capital may be meeting the interest on capital which has been fixed up in this way. In addition to these two sums, there is ten per cent. paid over standard, under certain conditions—representing a sum of fully £500,000, or a total profit payable to the coalowners of fully £26,000,000,
How does that compare with the profits earned by the coalowners in previous years? For thirty years before the War the average profits amounted to something like £9,000,000 per year. For the last five years before the War—which were the best five years that have been experienced so far as coalowners' profits are concerned — the average profit amounted to something like £13,000,000 per year. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government had all this information before them, they still come along and
propose to double the pre-war profits; and not only that, but during the Committee stage they gave the coalowners and the distributors of coal certain valuable concessions which, according to their own figures, may amount to an additional £125,000 per year. That has increased the hostility of the Labour party to the Bill—and we shall vote against the Third Reading as we did against the Second Reading.
During the Report stage a very interesting statement on behalf of the trade was made by the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory). He tried to show that the increase of wages paid to the miners during the five years of the war amounted to something like 250 per cent. That was a very ingenious statement, and it is very difficult to understand how that figure is made up. But I do not think the statement was in accordance with the facts. Minors' wages during those five years of War have been increased by 122 per cent., or considerably less than the cost of living has increased during the same period. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet made that statement in order to give a set off to the profits which have been made by the colliery owners and the Government during the same five years; but whether that be the case or not, during that same period the coalowners and the Government made a profit of £160,000,000, a sum which exceeds the total capital invested in mining concerns by no less than £25,000,000. The Government got a considerable share of these profits, but there is no doubt that after the Government had got their share the owners had still earned very substantial profits. For instance, during 1915 they amounted to fully £21,000,000. In 1916 the figure was £28,000,000, and in 1917 it amounted to £15,500,000. If you look at it in another way, for the years 1909 to 1913 the average profit per ton earned by the coalowners amounted to 11½d. per ton, whereas the profit they were earning in September, 1918, amounted to 3s. 6½d. per ton, or an increase of their pre-War profits by something like 270 per cent.
8.0 P.M.
Our second objection to the Bill is that it makes no provision for controlling the industry beyond 31st August next. Unless some other measure is introduced there is no arrangement for running the industry beyond that date. I believe we have reached a stage in the development of the
industry when you must of necessity have some method of pooling the results. Otherwise, we shall have disaster in one of the most vital industries of the country. We have had a statement from the Prime Minister that another measure will be introduced shortly. That other measure provided in some way or another, according to the promise given, for continuing the control of the industry. We have had promises of that kind before, but they have not always materialised. I would rather have had the measure promised by the Prime Minister introduced, and then we should have known what the future of the industry was likely to be. It is just possible that all hostility to the Bill which we are now discussing would then have been considerably reduced, if not entirely removed. In the absence of that Bill, and with no knowledge as to the ultimate intentions of the Government, we have no alternative but to give the Third Reading of this Bill our strongest opposition, just as we have opposed it in all its stages.

Mr. HOLMES: I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Horne) upon his appointment as President of the Board of Trade. It has been said in all quarters of the House that his has been the most successful importation into the Government during the past year. He has won for himself, not merely by his ability, but by his geniality and tact, the goodwill of everybody in the House. I hope that he will not mind if, with great deference, I offer him one word of warning. He is following two men who have been in succession President of the Board of Trade, and history will probably recall, if history does recall these things, that they have been successful in their office. They were two men entirely different—one a man of great business ability and experience, and the other a man of high scholastic attainments; but, notwithstanding all these qualities, both of them have always gone wrong on coal. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's fate will not be the same as theirs.
I must not again repeat the history of the coal industry during the past year as I did on the Second Reading, but I should like to refer to two points in which the Bill differs from the original Bill presented by the Government. When the
Bill was in Committee and there was no President of the Board of Trade the Parliamentary Secretary who was in charge was induced to accept an Amendment which should never have been proposed and should never have been accepted. In the original Bill the coalowners were to receive their pre-war standard of profits amounting to £22,000,000 and interest on increased capital which amounted to £4,000,000, making £26,000,000 as a certainty, providing that the profit was made in the whole industry. In addition, they were to receive one-tenth of the remaining profits, but it was provided that before arriving at the excess profits on which their one-tenth was to be taken the cost of the Coal Controller's Department was to be deducted. In Committee the hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory), who, I am sorry to see, is not here to-night, proposed an Amendment by which the cost of the Coal Controller's Department would still remain upon the industry, but the charge was delayed until after the one-tenth payable by the coalowners was calculated. On the Report stage I tried to show that the effect of this was that the coalowners would obtain another £30,000, after allowing for Excess Profits Duty, Income Tax and Super-tax. They were to receive the minimum under the original Bill of £26,000,000, and of anything beyond that sum up to £30,000,000, and they actually obtained by this Amendment another £30,000. It was a twopenny halfpenny Amendment. It was not worth proposing. It was just as if the hon. Member was engaging a manager for one of his collieries, and offered him £1,000 a year, and the man said he was not prepared to take £1,000 a year, but he would take £1,001 5s. That is what this Amendment amounts to. It represents on the coalowners' profits one-tenth of one per cent. With the present atmosphere in the coal industry, charged as it is with dynamite. Amendments like this tend to show that the coalowners are after every halfpenny they can get. I am quite sure that the Amendment was proposed by the hon. Baronet without the consent, and not at the request of his fellow-coalowners, and the acceptance of such an Amendment on the part of the Government was a very great mistake.
Having criticised that Amendment, I want to bless another Amendment that was accepted. On the Second Beading I called the attention of the House to the
fact that certain colliery companies which were doing a large export trade had formed subsidiary companies and coal exporting firms, to whom they were selling their coal at a less price than they could obtain if they sold the coal directly to the foreigners. In that way they were intercepting the profits which would otherwise come into the pool. The Parliamentary Secretary, on the Committee stage, introduced into the Schedule these words:
and where coal has been or is sold or delivered from an undertaking to a concern in which any owner, partner, or person engaged in the management or direction of the undertaking is directly or indirectly interested, the price to be brought into the accounts of the undertaking in respect of that coal shall be such as may from time to time be fixed by the Controller having regard to market price, and the decision of the Controller shall be final.
That means that where these profits have been intercepted by these subterfuges the Coal Controller will be able to go after the profits and bring them back into the pool. I shall take a fatherly interest in this particular Clause, and in a few weeks I shall ask my right hon. Friend what progress he is making in carrying it out.

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—

Mr. HOLMES: This Bill settles the manner in which the profits made in the coal industry shall be divided from the 1st April last year to the 31st August next. In view of the fact that fresh demands are being made for wages, based on the profits which presumably are being made in the industry at the present time, and having regard to the further fact that an announcement has just been made that a reduction in the price of bunker coal, which will cost over £20,000,000, is being made, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the actual facts concerning the profits of the coal industry should be made known. Up to the present we have only had estimates. We had estimates two or three times last year from the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller's Department. Then about Christmas Messrs. Alfred Tongue and Co. made a report which was printed and circulated. That again is an estimate. They have estimated the profits up to the 31st March, 1920. It is difficult to see how, if the estimate which he has made is correct, the Coal Controller can afford
to give over £20,000,000 away m the reduction of bunker coal. From the information so far officially before us there is nothing whatever to justify such a reduction.
The right hon. Gentleman has in the Coal Controller's Department every quarter the profit and loss account of every colliery in the Kingdom. They are supposed to receive them within two months after the expiration of the quarter. So presumably to-day the accounts for the last quarter of last year have been received from every colliery. The Coal Controller can now therefore draw up a complete combined profit and loss account of the whole industry for the year 1919. If that were done, if we were shown the total sales of coal, separating inland from export, and shown on the other side the total wages paid, the total cost of rent and rates, the total for pit wood, repairs and so forth we should have a complete account, supported in the first place by the auditors' of each company and in the second by the accountant in the Coal Controller's Department. Everybody would then see what was the actual result and not an estimated result of the working of the coal industry for the year 1919. I would suggest further that each quarter of this year should be treated in a similar way. By the end of August the President would be able to give us figures for the first quarter of this year showing again the figures on each side of the account, as I suggest should be done for last year. If that were done one would not have these disputes as to what are the actual profits of the coal industry. All of us would then be able to argue the thing out, not on what we thought the profits were, but on what had actually been accomplished in the industry.
The Leader of the Labour party a few minutes ago said that this Bill only goes to the 31st August, and one of the chief reasons why he and his friends objected to this Bill was that they did not know what the future of the industry was going to be. I want to support his request for an immediate Bill. One recognises the fact that coal control cannot possibly cease on the 31st August. If it did, the price of coal for domestic purposes in this country would go up to £4 or more per ton. No Government could stand such a state of affairs. If the price of coal is to be regulated, say domestic coal at one
price and export coal at another, Government control must continue. Beyond that we have the Prime Minister's promise made in August of last year that the Government would produce a Bill for the future of the whole industry. My last word would be this I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will produce his Bill as soon as possible.

Mr. SWAN: I support the objection to this measure, because I think that it will give rise to discontent. The Bill will hurl the community into a vicious, contentious, and inextricable labyrinth between wages and high prices. The attitude which we have adopted would not permit us to do anything else. This Bill, instead of bringing anything like contentment to our industrial community, the miners and the nation, would find them protesting against the manner in which the coal mines are conducted and the manner in which wages are being paid. It seems a strange policy, after the great and minute inquiry which took place, which resulted in the strong condemnation of the entire system adopted in the mines, that we should have a Bill of this character introduced without the smallest suggestion whereby the coal trade should be reformed, the output increased, and the life of the mining workers improved. We adopted an attitude in the early days of the War of urging the mine-owners and the nation, in order that we might keep the industries of the nation going, to keep down the cost of living and maintain the price of coal at a reasonable figure so that other industries should not be discouraged, and that there should be no opportunity of saying that, owing to the high prices of coal, they had been compelled to raise their prices. But here we have the vicious system to be perpetuated in the mining industry and reacting upon all the other industries of the community, which will compel other industries to increase the price of their commodities, will react upon the whole of the working classes of the country, and will compel them to ask for higher wages in order that they might cope with the cost of living.
All that will be due to the principle which is incorporated in this Bill. We had demonstrated by the Commission also that in five years the coalowners could absorb in profits far more than the capital they invested in the mines. In the old days we heard the wonderful tale of the
widow's cruse. But there is something more miraculous. The coalowners can eat their cake, and instead of it being smaller than before they will find it has increased in bulk. The profits of the coalowners before the War were between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000. Now they must have an increase guaranteed. At whose expense? The whole nation's. It is to be £26,000,000. The Commission demonstrated that on coke and by-products about £6,000,000 was made. We know that substantial increases in the prices of coke and by-products have enormously enhanced their profits, and I am informed that the profit on all by-products will be more than the pre-war profits of the coal-owners. That means that the coalowners will have a profit of between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000. With a great dearth of coal throughout Europe and the offering of substantial prices for export coal, we anticipate that there will be a huge balance to be distributed. The Government comes along with this Bill, and says that, because of the impecunious state of the coalowners, it is necessary to assist them with one-tenth of the huge balance of profits which is likely to be created. Can we expect to have peace in the industrial community? We believe that this is a deliberate attempt to provoke revolt among the miners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is our opinion.
When we want the nation to view these great industrial questions in a constitutional manner, and in order that we might be assisted we get a Commission, which makes certain recommendations; if the recommendation of that Commission are brushed aside as if it had never been appointed, trouble is sure to follow. There has been a great outcry about nations violating their promises. We suggest that the time has come when the Government should try to honour its pledges in order to bring peace to the country. We have another grievance, and one which we think demonstrates the failure of the present system of private ownership of the mines. We have year by year the tragedy of toil in the mines. Every year on an average 1,370 lives are lost, and 160,000 are more or less seriously injured. No provision in this Bill is likely to diminish those figures. The only way by which this great total of casualties can be reduced is by adopting the policy and the findings of the Commission set up last year. No later
than this afternoon, in reply to a question, information was given as to the spread of a terrible disease known as nystagmus. I was told by the Prime Minister that owing to this terrible disease, which is rampant in the mines, during the last year for which there were statistics there were 5,992 victims in receipt of compensation, 3,218 for the previous year, and 2,774 in 1914. We who have had experience on our compensation committees and on arbitration committees where compensation is dealt with, know that since 1914 this disease has substantially increased. We believe that if the Government had not been so lavish in looking after the interests of the coalowners and if it had given consideration to the better ventilation of the mines, we should not be presented to-day with that huge total of men afflicted with nystagmus It represents a huge loss to the nation in output, and, what is more, we know that these men are permanently disabled, for once you get the disease it becomes chronic.
We must have a system of mining under which due consideration is given to life and limb, under which the health and efficiency of the miners are considered, and we must eliminate from the industry these vicious interests that are a menace to the nation and to the progress of civilisation. Last year we had a Bill introduced to prevent profiteering. This is a strange commentary upon profiteering. After we have been told that the profits of the coalowners were altogether in excess of what was reasonable, it is a strange way to deal with profiteering and to reduce the cost of living by guaranteeing a substantial increase of profit to the coalowners instead of curtailing that profit. Obviously, you are reducing the standard of the whole of the workers of this country by this guarantee. The Profiteering Act has been described as an Act to catch sprats and minnows and to allow sharks to go through. This Bill is a culmination of the policy which prosecuted the little shopkeeper and allowed the sharks to float away. It would have paid the nation to have carried out the Sankey Report instead of this measure, in order to deal with the housing requirements of the miners of the country. You are providing lavish profits for the mineowners but the miner has to go back to the same house accommodation where bathroom, recreation ground, nursing, bakehouse, work room
and sometimes death room, are all in one room. Then there is the sitting room upstairs because it is not high enough to stand in for most of the miners. Those are the splendid environments of the miners and still we speak of an A.1 population. An hon. Member reminds me that the miners have two bathrooms. They have, because when snow or rain comes they get it through the roof, and often they have to use every tin in the house to catch the leakage. "We have no scale in this Bill for "wet" pay for that work We had hoped that this Bill would have done something to improve the housing conditions and to introduce some amenities, but we have abandoned that idea. We have criticised the present system because we believe it is not economical, and we do not think it tends to a maximum of output either for domestic or export coal. The whole system of mine ownership is absurd, and any business man would ridicule it because of the many conflicting interests. I know that no one is more surprised than the mine managers that this Bill should be introduced and that nationalisation has been shelved. In the area in which I come from we have eight mines overlapping, and this Bill is going to continue that. If the Sankey system had been adopted two of those mines could have worked the whole area.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): I would remind the hon. Member that on the Second Beading the whole problem is a proper subject for discussion, but on the Third Beading it is usual to discuss not what hon. Members think ought to be in the Bill but what is in the Bill.

Mr. SWAN: Instead of this Bill adding to the peace and harmony of the mining community and the welfare of the nation, it will continue a system which has been condemned by a Special Commission after minute inquiry.

Mr. LAWSON: It has been said that this Bill is extremely technical. Even those of us who have followed the mining industry in recent years and know something of the developments during the past year or two feel very great difficulty in understanding what this Bill "really does. That is not surprising when we find from
the statements repeatedly made by Ministers that it is very questionable whether they really understand the Bill in its entirety. It would be possible to quote from the Second Reading Debate and the Committee discussions to demonstrate that even those responsible for the Bill contradicted themselves from time to time. I think that we on this side have rendered a service, not only to the House, but even to Ministers and to the Government, in working upon thrashing out the details of this Bill. Out of the discussions there have come some very peculiar things. We were told on the Second Beading that this Bill gave the coalowners exactly what they would have got under the one and twopenny Bill. Sir Auckland Geddes told us that the one and twopenny Bill was going to give the coalowners £13,000,000, and we were told that that was what they were going to get by this Bill. We find, after some discussion on Second Reading and in Committee, that the £13,000,000 gradually works its way up to £22,000,000, and even then there is £4,000,000 more added to that for what is called new capital. It would be very interesting indeed to have some details about that new capital. The right hon. Gentleman who opposed the Bill gave us a personal illustration that had come under his own notice, and almost every Member on this side of the House could give other illustrations where reserves have been so used and the profits have been so manipulated that capital has been increased. As I said on the Report stage, it is simply capital under a new name, upon which we have got to pay interest out of that industry. This brings it up to £26,000,000, but as a matter of fact we discover that the total standards are not the total standards at all, for we are calmly told that this profit is simply profit upon coal. As the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan) has well said, the profits upon by-products are rapidly increasing, and it would not be out of the way to say that very soon the profits upon by-products will be equal to the profits upon coal.
An hon. Member drew attention to the fact that the price of bunker coal was going to be reduced. As far as I read that statement in the newspapers to-day, the coalowners in a certain district are claiming credit for a reduction in the price of bunker coal. I can understand
them being generous with somebody else's money. They have assured themselves of their own standards, and so they can afford to limit the pool that will otherwise come to the nation by reducing the price of bunker coal, and if that is not a proper interpretation, I shall welcome a correction from the President of the Board of Trade. We wish to put up our protest against this very flexible Clause, which makes it possible for the owner's profits to be extended to an almost unlimited degree. Indeed, the profits do not stop at £26,000,000, for there is an extra 10 per cent. that comes out of the pool profits, and altogether it would be to the public advantage, as well as to the advantage of this House, if we could get some real interpretation as to what are the financial obligations of the coalowners under this particular Clause. It seems to us, from the point of view of drafting, even if the sum we fixed in our Amendment on Report was too low for the coalowners, that the Government could have taken a lesson from the drafting of that Amendment and made this Bill more clear than it is at present. One of the things that we say, and that we will not cease to repeat, is that at least the public interest, and the interests of the workers in this industry, ought to have been taken into consideration when the profits were being fixed under this Bill.
We all remember the great masses of men who went out when the call came in 1914, and the marvel, not only of the people of this country, but even of the coalowners themselves, was that men went from homes that were not worthy of animals of the lower creation, let alone of men, and went from those homes to defend this country. They were told there was going to be a new country, and now they have come back to the old homes. Up to the present time neither the coalowners nor the Government have given anything like a definite guarantee that these conditions are going to be dealt with, and so, stage by stage, we have fought this Bill, and we intend to fight it, for the very simple reason that there is no great advantage to the public or to the workers in the industry. There is a great advantage to the coalowners themselves, and I want to say quite frankly to the Government that it seems to me that this kind of Bill marks and seals the compact which demonstrates the de-
claration that the Prime Minister has himself made, that he is out to defend the private interests and to fight the Labour party and the workers every time. I want to say that, in spite of all of the fine talk about improved conditions, some very serious things have got to be faced by the Government. I myself am one of a family of ten, and I got the earliest rudiments of my reading in a house of three rooms, where ten of us and the mother and father lived, supplied by a generous colliery company, a private limited company, which, because of its particular foundations, does not issue balance sheets. One can form one's own conclusions from what one knows of these collieries, but I am able to say that those houses were built fifty years ago, and the same company has built within the last ten years houses that were infinitely worse than the houses they built fifty years ago. I know that they send advertisements out and write articles, and we get the booklets ourselves telling us what some of the companies have done in the newer ventures, and we give them credit that here and there there has been a crude attempt; but even in those cases it has been nothing like proportionate to the opportunities that are before them, because of the great amount of wealth that is at their disposal in the form of coal seams of a fine quality and a valuable nature. So we say that the profits, instead of going to the coalowners to such an extent, ought to have been so modified that at least there was going to be a decent amount in the pool to deal with conditions. We also would ask a question concerning that Clause which deals with the coal control. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman) said on the Second Reading,
To my mind the strongest and most valid objection that was taken to what I may call the 1s. 2d. Bill was that which was put forward by the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division (Mr. Hartshorn) when he said that as things stood control would entirely come to an end on the 31st March, and that no provision had been made for regulating the industry from that time onwards, and the time was so short it was hardly possible to arrange a scheme in that time. That objection we think we are meeting now by this Bill, which gives us to the 31st August, and by the undertaking given by the Prime Minister at the earliest possible moment to introduce another Bill for the regulation of the industry generally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th February, 1920; Cols. 752–755, Vol. 125.]
One of the things we would like to ask
the Government before we allow a Bill like this to go through is whether their new Bill is going to maintain the Coal Control. I think that is a fair question. I think it is worth while asking another question. Have the Government any guarantee that if they are going to preserve the Coal Control the owners are going to agree to the preservation of that Control?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he must not go beyond this Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: I thought that was rather relevant, on account of the Clause which ends the Coal Control on the passing of this Bill. I have seen advertisements recently in which the coal-owners say that they demand, in the interests of the nation, that they should control their own business, like everyone else, under their expert direction. It seems to me to be almost beyond conception what will be the result of the ending of the Coal Control, and evidently from the advertisements we see, so far as the owners are concerned, they mean to end it. So we would like to know from the Government whether they mean to continue it in their new Bill, and whether they have any guarantee that the coal-owners are going to agree to that continuation. I am well aware that the Coal Control was not ideal, but with all its defects, if Government control were allowed to end, the results upon the industry would be tragic. Those of us who have taken part in the proceedings of the mining industry since the control was established can testify to the psychological change that took place with the establishment of the coal control. I have been, as a workmen's representative, in a colliery office. I have also sat opposite the coalowners on a district board, where we were never allowed to forget that we were workers' representatives and that we were workers. You may talk as much as you like about the bringing together of the workers and the owners, but there was ever the dividing line between us. One of the advantages of the control was that when we used to meet the Coal Controller we did sit there equally with the coalowners as citizens. We marvelled when the Controller suddenly ceased to call the miners' representatives together. We wondered
whether that was the first step towards dissolving control. The new Controller was appointed, and it seems to us that the Government for some time now has been trying to relieve itself of this particular organisation. We think if under control the owners had been continually called together and the workers' representatives had been taken continually into confidence, so that there would have been opened a mutual understanding between each section as well as the Government representative in the Coal Controller, there would have been a much improved spirit in the industry at the present time. Therefore we are very much concerned as to what is going to happen about the control under the new Bill.
Finally, I would say this, when there is a demand made for wages that is called syndicalism. The Prime Minister has given the Bolsheviks of this country their only show by continually referring to them. I believe this Bill, with the handsome present made to the coalowners, revealing a very clear compact between the Government and the coalowners, is going to give material for propaganda to the extreme section, for which the Government can blame itself. I know, of course, the Bill is going through, but we have done our best to make the House and Ministers understand what it means. We have done our best to make the country understand what it means, and I say it is going to hamper the consumer; it is going to hamper the industry; it is going to limit those far-reaching improvements that some of us really did hope would come some day. Therefore, because of these things, because we believe that it is a bad Bill; because it lays an undue financial burden upon the people of this country and upon the Industry; because it has revealed the fact that the coalowners, without due regard to the workers or the public interest, were prepared to get the last ounce and the last penny they could out of the industry. Because of these things I join with those who Have entered their protest against the Third Reading of this Bill.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. SPENCER: The first observation I would like to make is that it is a remarkable thing, when a Bill of this kind is having its Third Reading, that so very few of the interested parties are present to
assist the Government. That certainly is very indicative of the fact that—so far as they are concerned—they at least are satisfied. I think it was Talleyrand who said that "speech was given to conceal thought." If Talleyrand had drawn this Bill it would have done him great credit, because there are very few Members of this House, and very few people outside, without a special legal training who can understand its provisions. We certainly did not get the kernel of this Bill until it had passed through several of its stages, and then it had to be made known by those who had had special association with the Coal Control. I want to congratulate the Government in at least giving some reality to one of the most brilliant metaphors of the Prime Minister. In addressing large gatherings, the Prime Minister very often has offered them a dish of rare and refreshing fruit. That is being translated into something like reality. Instead, however, of the general public getting the rare and refreshing fruit, it seems to me that the dish is going to those who are already rich almost beyond the dreams of avarice.
The Government is supposed to be the trustees of the nation. So far as this Bill is concerned, it reveals them, not exactly as trustees of the nation, but as the guardians of one particular section of the nation. They are supposed to be the national gamekeepers, but it looks as though they were rather on the side of the poachers; and this Bill reveals them in very, very undesirable company. Let us look at what the Bill contains as it comes before us. In the first place, the Bill makes provision for the continuation of the Coal Confirmation Act of 1918 up to August 31st of this year. The Government have promised to make some provision for dealing with coal control beyond that date. We are not, however, to-night dealing with the future intentions of the Government. We can only deal with those intentions as we find them embodied in this Bill. This limitation in itself is a very, very serious thing. If coal control came to an end on that date, we can hardly conceive the great calamity to the general public, and those actually engaged in the industry. Let us conceive for a moment that it has come to an end. The coal control to-day is arranged. There are certain regulations for pooling the profits. This admits of a national system for the
regulation of wages. That would not be possible at all but for the fact that you have national regulations. If this comes to an end on 31st August, it will certainly land the industry in such a state of affairs that either the wages of the miners must be rapidly decreased or the prices of the coal for inland purposes would suddenly and rapidly rise. I do not know whether the Government and the supporters of the Government consider that to be a very desirable thing. So far, however, as we on these Benches are concerned, we are not at all desirous to see coal prices in the country rising in the abnormal manner they would in the contingency to which I have alluded. That is one reason why we oppose this Bill.
The second reason is certainly a more trenchant reason because of the actual financial provisions of the Bill in relation to one section of the community. Let me approach this matter from the point of view of principle. A principle is bad, certanly, if it is not a principle that can be adopted by this House and applied to any other industry. It is bad for the nation that the Government should adopt a certain principle and seek to apply it to one industry, if they dare not make it of general application. The principle is this: that a certain industry is to be guaranteed certain standard profits—or rather nine-tenths of those profits—whether the industry actually makes them or not. If that is a good principle, certainly it would not be bad if applied to other industries, and it would not be bad if applied to the workmen. Is it a fair principle to guarantee one section of the community their profits over a certain period, and yet to deny the right to labour of the application of the same principle?
We certainly could not agree to the amounts that have been suggested by hon. Members who sit upon these Benches. It has been said more than once by an hon. Baronet—he is not conspicuous by his absence to-night, and it seems that he has received a little advice from his friends and that he will not transgress again in the same way that he did the other evening—that if the owners are going to receive increases in profits, the miners have received extraordinary increases in wages. He cited the fact that in 1913 they received in dividends about £18,600,000 and that the wages of the miners were approximately
6s. 4d. per ton, compared with something in the region of 12s. or 14s. now. He compared the pre-War standard with that which is proposed to be given under this Bill, and he put this forward as evidence that the miners have had a far greater advantage than the owners. If that be any evidence at all, it is evidence that the miners were not getting their due share in 1913 I am convinced that, if in 1913 any of the Conciliation Boards had approached the owners for an increase of wages, and had made the statement that they were receiving profits to the extent of £18,600,000, the owners immediately would have denied it in strong and emphatic language. Now, however, instead of attempting to make their profits in those bygone years look small, they are trying to keep them up for the purpose of extracting the largest amount of money. The owners are to be secured of nine-tenths of their profits, and, if some calamity overtook the industry—if there were a protracted strike lasting 10 or 11 weeks—it would not affect their profits. I venture to say that the country could not carry on if that principle were applied to all the industries.
It seems to us an extraordinary thing that this paltry sum of £125,000 should have been extracted by the colliery companies to swell the enormous sum which they are already going to obtain under this Bill. They certainly are going to obtain a very large sum, because they are fortunate in the fact that the years 1912–13 were exceptional years. If anyone will turn to the third volume of the evidence before the Royal Commission they will find that according to the representative of the owners the profits, including royalties, for a series of years were £11,700,000, and, if you deduct the amount of royalties, those profits put at the most liberal figure would not be over £7,000,000. They have the good fortune that in 1912–13 they made extraordinarily large profits, and when the War broke out and the industry was taken over by the Government in the interests of the nation, they made those the standard profits; but now they are not satisfied with their pre-War standard of profits, and they extract from the Government in addition a paltry sum of £125,000 and an indefinite sum of 10 per cent. if there be a margin of profit over and above the pre-War standard.
Where is the money to come from? It can only come from the British public, and It means that the cost of living must continually go higher and higher. The House, instead of being the trustees of the nation, seem to have arrived at the position when their policy is not merely to advocate the continuity of private enterprise, but to support private enterprise as against the rights and claims of the general public. That is manifest in the financial arrangement which has been made in connection with this Bill.
We who have constantly to appeal to the Government to adjust wages have a far more difficult task than the owners. I should be very ill-advised if I attempted to say anything in this House to-night, but to-day we have been meeting the Government, and I am afraid that our efforts have not been productive of a very great deal of good, though whether we have reached finality or not is another thing. We have found it extremely difficult to adjust the relationship between wages and prices, and it seems to us that the owners find it far easier to obtain from the Government satisfaction from a financial point of view. This Bill can only have this effect on the workmen, that so far as the owners are concerned, and those who are financially interested in mines, and whilst we have a form of control under which it is comparatively easy for the owners to receive a measure of satisfaction, the workmen can derive no satisfaction so long as there is a conflict between labour and capital.
The share of the owner is to be guaranteed whether the mines are productive or not and whatever transpires, but so far as wages are concerned workmen are not to be assured and they are not considered worthy of their hire. This can only have one effect; the more coal there is produced the more the owner is to receive. Besides the large sums I have already mentioned, provision is made for a further 10 per cent. for the owners, but so far as the workmen is concerned he has to be satisfied, not with a measure of security but with what he can extract by the force and power of his trade union. That is not satisfactory, and it would have been far wiser if the Government had confined the profits of the owners to a standard which might be considered fair and reasonable, and then they should have turned to Labour and said, "We have confined the owners' profits to a
fair, reasonable and equitable share, and so far as you are concerned we will treat you in the same spirit." That is not what the Government are doing, because they are simply lavishing upon the owners these profits; but so far as the workmen are concerned they are to be dealt with in a most niggardly way, and this must have, during the next few weeks, a very sad effect upon the minds of those who are the labourers in this industry.

Mr. S. WALSH: I only rise to ask two or three questions. I want to know if my hon. Friend who has just spoken is right when he states that no matter what happens in the industry nine-tenths of the standard profit is to be secured to the coalowners. Secondly, I want to know, if control comes to an end on the 31st of August, will that have the effect of doing away with the Coal Prices Limitation Act of 1916? The reason I submit that point is that the Coal Prices Limitation Act came into operation before the existence of the Coal Controller. Coal control only commenced really at the back end of 1916 for the South Wales area; and it came into operation three months later for the rest of the kingdom. Thirdly, is there anything in this Bill which secures to the miners the war wages they have already received? On two occasions' 1s. 6d. per day for those over 16 and 9d. for those under 16 were given by the decision of the Coal Controller. Supposing coal control lapses on the 31st of August, are those wages secured? I am bound to say that I have sought in vain in the Bill for any assurance upon that point.
Fourthly, what effect will de-control on 31st August have upon the payment of the Sankey wage? These are points which one submits with some degree of diffidence, but they are very important points, for the whole of the coal-mining industry. My hon. Friends who have spoken are certainly in the right when they speak of the gravity of the Bill submitted. It may be quite right, but if it conveys any wrong impression, and if the miners as a whole feel that they are not being fairly treated, and that greater concessions are being made to one side as against the other, nothing but mischief can ensue. I used to think myself fairly intelligent, and for many years I laboured under that flattering impression, but I have given it all up now. This is a Bill than which I have
never known a measure so difficult to understand; and in which there seems to have been a malicious deliberation in making it impossible to be understood by simple minds. I know it is a commonplace in Parliament in which I have never indulged to say that a Bill is badly drafted and shows an utter want of thinking out, and so on, but I defy any man in this House, even the Minister in charge of the Bill, to say that he understands it. There is not a coalowner, and there is hardly a lawyer who can say what is the real effect of any one Clause or Sub-clause, or what is the effect of the Schedules upon the conditions in the Clauses. It is the worst Bill I have ever known, and I say this without any malice against the Minister, because I think the compliment paid to him by an hon. Member who spoke earlier is very well deserved. But it is not his baby, and he ought not to be held responsible for such a malconception. I am sure the whole public and all who have to deal with one of the most troublous industries that the mind of man could ever conceive, will endorse my view when I say that we shall have infinite trouble over this Bill, because we do not know where it is leading or what is the tenour of its Clauses. If there was nothing else but this, I should vote against the Third Reading. I would like before sitting down to hear a statement from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on these four points. First, are we to uderstand that no matter what happens in the industry nine-tenths of the average standard profits will be made up to the coal owners? Secondly, what will be the effect on the Coal Prices (Limitation) Act when control coms to a close on the 31st of August? Thirdly, what will be the effect of decontrol on the war wage granted on the two distinct occasions to which I have referred? And fourthly, what will be its effect upon the Sankey Award which came into existence on the 9th January last year? If the right hon. Gentleman will answer these four questions he will relieve the minds of some of us, although he may not take us into the Lobby with him.

Dr. MURRAY: I want to call to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman one of the by-products of this Bill, and to make a suggestion to him with regard to the power which he will have to exercise under it. I take the liberty first, however, to congratulate him upon his
appointment to the important office of President of the Board of Trade, and on his passage from the troubled waters of the Labour Ministry to the more placid waters of that Board. With this coal difficulty to face it may be suggested he is jumping from the frying pan into the fire, but I hope that that will not prove to be the case. I hear that the price of bunker coal has been reduced by £2 per ton, and the right hon. Gentleman will have to deal with certain grievances arising out of that. I want to make sure that he will see to it that the advantages derived from that concession shall not go entirely to the shipowner, but that the public shall have some of it secured by his administration of this particular aspect of his duty.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not discussing the administration of the Board of Trade. The question before the House is the Third Reading of this Bill.

Dr. MURRAY: I only wanted to suggest that under this Bill the right hon. Gentleman could get a more efficient coastal service, but I anticipated I would be out of order in so doing.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The question we are now considering is the Third Beading of this most pernicious Bill. I believe it to be a Bill wholly unjust. It is not fair either towards the general public or towards the miners. It is going to give the coalowner such a place in the industry that both the Government and the miners will be sorry that the Bill was ever introduced. We know something of the coalowners. We have met many of them, and it was a happy day when we came to meet the Coal Controller with equal rights as citizens with the coalowners. That was a complete change and it led to some business being done. I believe you are going to give the coalowners of this country a standard of profit which in the days to come, when prices may not be so inflated, they will stick to, and it will take the Government and the miners all their time to bring things back to the region of commonsense. This Bill proposes to give them £26,000,000, and the coalowners are people who will stick to it, whatever occurs. What are the main reasons for my saying that? I have met coalowners very often. I have tried to regulate with them the wages in accordance with the
profits in the industry in the district to which I belong, but they always insist that the very worst concern must be made to pay a reasonable profit before any wage can be guaranteed. That is the sort of thing which is calculated to make the miners think twice before they give way on such a Bill as this.
This Measure is unjust to the poor consumer. The people most needing relief are the very poor who cannot afford to buy coal. This Bill gives the coal, however, to the people who least need it. The miners, themselves, are in a very much worse position than they were prior to the War. There can be no doubt about that. It was suggested during the Debate on the Report stage that the miners were responsible for sending up the cost of living. No greater mis-statement could have been made. Our wages have always followed the price of coal. We have had to leave it in that way all along the line, but we have an earnest desire that the people should benefit by any reduction or by any surplus money coming into the pool rather than that it should go to the coalowners who are already doing so well. We are asked to give an additional £4,000,000 for new capital. I should like to see how some of that money has been spent. I am pretty well acquainted with the mines in my own county. A good deal of additional expenditure has been incurred since pre-war days, and there has been a good deal more spent in the last five years on the mines than formerly, with the result that the coalowners are in a position to make better profits. But much of that money undoubtedly should have been paid to the Exchequer in the form of Excess Profits Duty, and in that way the people of this country might have had some advantage out of it. This Bill is fraught with trouble to any Government that may succeed the present administration. Coalowners will hold the position which this Government is creating for them. It cannot be said that they did badly before the War. It is impossible to take any other view when it is remembered that a coalowner bought up a mine in one year, and in less than two years paid the whole of the purchase price out of the profits. That has happened more than once. My Leader quoted a case of bonus shares. I have even worse cases in my mind. There is one in my own county where a very rich company has not only given £1 bonus
per one share, but two bonus shares for every £1 invested in the company. That company paid 35 per cent. last year. It has paid as high as 75 per cent., I believe, and we are asking what capital there is left. That is the sort of thing the coal-owners have been doing all along the line, and the Government will have to suffer in the future. I plead with the Government, at this last hour of this Bill, to withdraw it and let us have a measure which will give justice, not only to the miner, but to the consumer, and equal justice to the coalowner. I have pleasure in supporting the rejection, and I hope the Government will withdraw the measure.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir R. Horne): I should like, in the first place, to express my acknowledgment of the far too generous compliment which has been paid to me by several hon. Members to-night in relation to the new appointment which I now hold. I say quite frankly that I owe a great deal to the lenient and amiable way in which hon. Members opposite have always looked upon my short-comings. I venture, on the present occasion, to express my very great gratitude for the consideration they have always shown to me.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes), in referring to myself, ventured to warn me of the difficult character of the problem we have to deal with in the coal industry I am fully conscious that its difficulties are very great. The legislation of war-time has greatly increased the ordinary troubles which arose in the coal industry, and the situation in which we find ourselves to-day is far from an easy one. At the same time, I am not without some hope that I shall be able to do a little towards the solution of some of its difficulties. After all, if there is any industry which I know, it is the coal industry. I was born and reared in a raining community, and there is one thing in which I hope I shall never be wanting, and that is sympathy towards the men who work in the pits. I have grown up amongst them, and my sympathies are always engaged by those old attachments. It is too much for any man to hope that he is going to wave a wand and get rid of the difficulties in the coal industry at once. There is, however, one thing which, at least, I can say with great sincerity, and that is that nothing shall be wanting on my part to make the situation
as easy as may be possible from the point of view of any person who can wield any authority in a Government Department.
A certain amount of misapprehension has, I think, been displayed to-night as to the precise thing which we are discussing. The present Bill is called an emergency measure, and, in truth, that is what it is; but it has been discussed, to a certain extent, as if it were a measure which was going to deal with this matter on some sort of final and ultimate principles. It does not do anything of the kind its whole intention was to put upon a proper basis the earnings of the coal industry from the 1st April, 1919, down to the 31st August of this year. What is to happen thereafter is an entirely different question. I recognise that queries have been put to me from time to time from the opposite Benches as to what we are to do when the effect of this Bill comes to an end. I agree that we must have a plan, and that plan has already been prepared, and is under discussion. It has not been put in an absolutely final state, but I can assure the House that it will not be long before the Government's scheme for dealing with the coal industry, when this Bill comes to an end, will be before it for consideration. It would be improper of me to answer questions to-night as to what the particular Clauses of that measure will contain. Obviously, that would lead now to a Second Reading discussion of the proposals in a Bill which is not yet before the House. I am sure it would be entirely out of order, and would not be in any way expediting matters.
Confining myself to this Bill as we find it, I would venture to answer briefly some questions which have been put to me. I do not propose to go over the whole ground, because much of the discussion was concerned with points which were considered at some length and more laboriously on one of the evenings of last week. Other parts of the discussion dealt with points which were really thrashed threadbare in the Second Reading Debate. There are, however, one or two paints with which I think it is my duty shortly to deal. I was asked, for example—and about this there seems to be a misapprehension—whether this Bill really gives the coal owner, under all circumstances and whatever happens, nine-tenths of the standard profit. The answer to that ques-
tion is in the negative. It is quite distinctly provided that the kind of occasions which give rise to his losses, or to his failing to reach the standard, must be considered from the point of view of whether they are the result of control, and, if they are not, he is not entitled to make up for losses which are brought about by any other cause. I was asked what the effects of decontrol were to be upon various matters—War wages, the Limitation of Prices Act and the Sankey Wage, So far as the Limitation of Prices Act is concerned, that has already come to an end, and what is now happening is not in any way affected by that Act.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what brought that Act to an end?

Sir R. HORNE: My impression is that it was intended only to apply for a specific period, but I am not perfectly certain; or it may be that it was brought to an end by the subsequent Act which dealt with the agreement. At any rate it is at an end. I notice that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hartshorn) does not agree with me.

Mr. HARTSHORN: It was not at an end when the 6s. was added, and it was not at an end when the 10s. was taken off. That was done under the powers conferred upon the Board of Trade by that Act.

Sir R. HORNE: I will not venture to dispute what my hon. Friend says, because I know he is a great authority on these matters, and I confess I am new to these particular considerations. I was, however, under the impression that the Limitation of Prices Act was at an end, and that what is happening now is effected by what the Controller is able to do in the exercise of his office. I am told that the Coal Prices Limitation Act comes to an end six months after peace. The passage of this Bill does not in any way, as it appears to me, affect decontrol. The situation with regard to control is that it must either be continued by other legislation or come to an end. The whole point as to de-control will be determined by the Bill which the Government is about to produce. This Bill, as I take it, will not in any way by itself deal with de-control. It deals only with
matters which are the subject of its provisions, namely the profits which the coal-owners are to get up to 31st August next. But that does, not determine whether control is to last over 31st August or not.

Mr. S. WALSH: The one point which was being urged, and which if it was being truly urged would have a great impression upon the public mind, was that when control came to an end on 31st August inland prices, which are still regulated by the prices fixed in the Coal Limitation Act, would bound up to an enormous height if such an Act were rot to be in force. The conditions made under the Board of Trade Orders are still upon prices fixed in the Coal Prices Limitation Act, and that Act is still in force and therefore prices would not bound to the enormous height that many people thought they might.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member must not take it that control comes to an end on 31st August of necessity. That question will be determined by the subsequent Bill which the Government is going to introduce. It was suggested that payment would be made to the coal-owners under this Bill in respect of watered capital. So far as I understand the terms of the Bill—it is a very difficult Bill to understand—nothing can be paid upon watered capital at all. The allowances that are made for increases made from the returns for Excess Profits Tax, and that matter is watched by the Inland Revenue, who have very careful rules for the prevention of people obtaining back some of their Excess Profits Duty in respect of watered capital. It is only if yon can show that actual capital has either been left in the industry or newly expended that you may induce the Inland Revenue Authorities to recognise any claim, and accordingly, whatever the facts may be—and there are many occasions when companies have given bonus shares—no manipulation of that kind can increase under this Bill the amount which any coalowners will be able to attain in respect of expended capital. The hon. Member (Mr. Holmes) asked that some arrangement should be made whereby the actual profits earned would be definitely shown by the Coal Controller. The very thing which he said was so desirable, and which he would like to see arranged, is specifically provided for in the second Schedule, under which
it is stipulated that in each quarter the Coal Controller shall make up a statement of the profits actually earned during that quarter.
Now I turn to some observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson). He made a comparison between the profits which were allowed to the owners under the Bill and the average profits which they earned during 30 years before the War. It is obvious that that cannot be a fair comparison, because you had during those 30 years a developing trade. It was not as if you had a thing which had come to its full growth 30 years ago, and were comparing it with the present day. You have only to look at some figures to see how unfair that comparison would be. If you go back 10 years before the War, during that period 300,000 more men actually came into the industry, and more have come in since. So that what has been going on is an expansive development of the trade, which I hope has not even now reached its zenith, and will expand further. He also used a figure of coal owners' profits which I could not recognise. He said they are now on an average 3s. 6d. a ton.

Mr. ADAMSON: I was simply meeting an argument used by the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory) on the Report stage. He was making a statement as to the enormous increase in miners' wages, and I was comparing the profits that had been earned by the owners during that same period, and I said they were earning 3s. 6½d. per ton. in September, 1918, which was an advance of 270 per cent. over the pre-War profit earned.

Sir R. HORNE: I am not able to meet the right hon. Gentleman upon the question of what was actually being earned in September, 1918, but I do not think he will find any period of a year in which, even in the best of recent times, the coal-owners have on an average been making 3s. 6d. per ton. I certainly cannot find any figures of that sort; which the right hon. Gentleman can rely upon.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Every year during the War.

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot find any figures of that kind. The figure I have seen is much more nearly approaching 2s. 2d. than 3s. 6d.

Mr. ADAMSON: If you get the figures up to date you will find it.

10.0 P.M.

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be glad to do that. I turn to two considerations which seem to me to be larger than those with which we have been dealing, It has been asserted that the coalowner has been far too well dealt with under this Bill. That is the gravamen of the attack which has been made on it. If you make a comparison with other trades, I do not think you would be able to urge that argument with the same confidence as it has been stated. For example, it may be that all trades should be reduced. That is an entirely different argument, and one which one would meet in its proper place. But look at the comparison between the way in which the coal trade is treated and other trades are treated by the ordinary legislation of the country at present? In any other trade 40 per cent. of the excess profit is taken by the State and the trader is left with 60 per cent. What happens to the coal-owner under this Bill? All he has left, under any circumstances, in addition to his pre-war profit, is 10 per cent. of the surplus, after the standards have been dealt with. The standards for the coal trade are fixed upon precisely the same principle as they are fixed for every other trade in the country. The other trader takes 60 per cent. of his excess profits after his standards have been realised. The coalowner, under this Bill, can never take more than 10 per cent. after his standards have been realised. You cannot gay that the coal trade is being too generously treated in this manner. If so, then the treatment meted out to every other trade in the country is immensely more so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That may be an argument for dealing with all industries in a different way, but, at any rate, when we are dealing with this particular Bill, it does not found any justification for the plea that we are dealing too generously with the coal trade as compared with any other trade.
What is the alternative to this Bill? That is what we have to consider. Another Bill was produced but it was not too generously dealt with by hon. Members opposite. The only alternative now to this Bill is to carry on with the previous provisions of the Control Agreement. Look for a moment at the difference
between what happened under that arrangement and what will happen under this Bill. If the control agreement was to persist the coalowner would under its provisions be able to take 15 per cent. of his surplus instead of 10 per cent. The situation is far better for him than that, and worse for the State. In every case where a coalowner who is selling for export is obtaining large profits he would get 15 per cent. of his excess profit out of the large amount gained by selling at those very high prices, and the burden would be left upon the State to make up to the standard the losses which were incurred by all the other coal traders in the country. Under this Bill you do something totally different. You really pool the profits of the industry. You do what my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Adamson) says is an absolute necessity in the coal trade. You look at the things as a whole. You say that those who are making large profits shall do something for the pits where losses are being incurred. That is what we have done in this Bill. It then pro-

vides that the coal trade, as a whole, shall only take 10 per cent. of the surplus over its standard profits. We estimate that the difference between these two arrangements has the result that by this Bill the State is saved ten million pounds. It will cost ten million pounds more to continue under the old arrangement than to carry on under this Bill. That is something which is worth achieving. I predict that, so far from this Bill providing, as has been suggested, a cause of great difficulty, it will, while it remains in operation, remove causes of trouble. It at least settles upon a fair basis the coal industry of this country up to the 31st August of this year. It is not in any way a permanent arrangement. We have plenty of time to look about us. The new Bill will be a determining factor in regard to the future of the industry as a whole. On the ground of the considerations which I have urged I now ask the House to give this Bill the Third Reading.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 43.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[10.7 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Edge, Captain William
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)


Atkey, A. R.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
King, Commander Henry Douglas


Austin, Sir Herbert
Foreman, Henry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Baldwin, Stanley
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lindsay, William Arthur


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lioyd-Greame, Major P.


Barnston, Major Harry
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Lonsdale, James Roiston


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Gardiner, James
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Glimour, Lieut. Colonel John
Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lyie, C. E. Leonard


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Lynn, R. J.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Britton, G. B.
Greig, Colonel James William
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Macmaster, Donald


Bruton, Sir James
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mallalieu, F. W.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Mason, Robert


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hanna, George Boyle
Middlebrook, Sir William


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Butcher, Sir John George
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Morison, Thomas Brash


Carr, W. Theodore
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Casey, T. W.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hinds, John
Nelson, R. F. W. R.


Clough, Robert
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Oman, Charles William C.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Parker, James


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Cope, Major Wm.
Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rae, H. Norman


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Daiziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Jameson, J. Gordon
Ramsden, G. T.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jeilett, William Morgan
Raper, A. Baldwin


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jesson, C.
Renwick, George


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Johnson, L. S.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Johnstone, Joseph
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Royden, Sir Thomas
Taylor, J.
Whitla, Sir William


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Seddon, J. A.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon John
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Waddington, R.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wallace, J.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Walters, Sir John Tudor
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Simm, M. T.
Watton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Wood, Major S. Hill. (High Peak)


Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)



Stanton, Charles B.
Waring, Major Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Holmen, J. Stanley
Sexton, James


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Lawson, John J.
Spencer, George A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lunn, William
Swan, J. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Donnelly, P.
Myers, Thomas
Tootill, Robert


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Grundy, T. W.
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Nell


Harbison, Thomas James S.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
 Maclean.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS AND INSURANCE).

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the granting of credits and the undertaking of insurances for the purpose of re-establishing overseas trade and the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums required for granting credits for such purpose up to an amount not exceeding at any one time £26,000,000 and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with the granting of such credits and the undertaking of insurances so far as those expenses are not defrayed out of sums received by the Board by way of commission in respect of credits or by way of premiums in respect of insurances."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Mr. ADAMSON: Can we have some explanation as to what these credits mean before we vote?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): There is a White Paper in the Vote Office with a full explanation. As the information has been asked for I am only too pleased to give it. The Department concerned is the Board of Trade. As the Committee knows, there is great difficulty in re-establishing trade relations with a great many parts of
Europe, because it is quite impossible in many parts of Europe—South Russia has been an instance in the last few months—for cash payments to be made for any goods delivered. Unless some system is adopted by which credits can be given to the traders in those countries, it is impossible for our manufacturers to do any business with them. The matter is far too large for the bankers to undertake and the Government has to come to the rescue. The Bill that will be introduced, though it hardly rests with me to give the details, will make provision for a self-supporting scheme and to pay the expenses in connection with the running, of the scheme. It is not anticipated that in the long run any money will be lost. This is merely granting an extension of credit, but it is only fair to remember that if owing to unforeseen circumstances through the prolongation of disturbed conditions in those countries in may be possible that there will be an ultimate charge on the Exchequer. That is a subject that may be argued and discussed when the Bill is before the House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is a very interesting little sum of money we are asked to vote of £26,000,000. Let me remind hon. Members of the history of this matter. Last year there appeared on the Order Paper for months a Bill entitled Oversea Trade Credit and Insurance. I asked for a copy of it in the
Vote Office, but they had not got it, and now, nearly a year afterwards, there is still no copy of the Bill in the Vote Office. The hon. Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) was at that time the representative of the Government and the Department of Overseas Trade but has since resigned. I do not think that has had anything to do with the delay. This sum of £26,000,000, like many of the Government promises, is eventually to be recovered. We have heard that story before, and in many cases small Government expenditure has grown into a very large amount and we have had rosy promises—as in the case of public company promoters—which do not always come to pass, and are often the cause of loss to the unfortunate taxpayer. I am afraid this is going to be very much a case of that sort. I represent a big commercial community, the business part of a great city, and when I see a proposal to subsidise the export trade to the tune of £26,000,000 I am naturally much interested. At one time a considerable area of territory in the South of Russia was nominally under the rule of the White Russians, our Allies, and the idea then, as enunciated by the Minister for War, in one of his famous perorations, was that it was necessary to bolster up trade and send common articles of household use into this vast area, and that this was not a commercial proposition, and therefore the British taxpayer should foot the Bill. This was the beginning of this scheme of bolstering up the export trade by subsidy. This White Paper is, I suppose, about a year old, although 1920 is the date at the bottom, but that could easily be altered. We are still told it is necessary to supply this money because of the trade conditions in the South and East of Russia. Since this wonderful scheme germinated in the minds of the Minister for War and his faithful henchmen in the Government the position in South-East Russia has changed, and the large fruitful area in the Ukraine which was dominated by our ally, General Denikin, of evil memory, Knight-Commander of the Most Noble Order of the Bath, as I am reminded by an hon. Member, is now under a Soviet Government. We are asked to vote £26,000,000 to subsidise trade with the South and East of Russia, but the only South and East of Russia
to-day is under the Government of either the Soviet Republic of Moscow or the Soviet Republic of the Ukraine, and therefore this money is to subsidise trade with Soviet Russia. I really think that, anxious as I am to see trade started with Russia, and indeed with all parts of the world, it is asking a great deal at this late date, in the extraordinary turmoil we have seen in Russia in the last few months, to vote £26,000,000 to subsidise trade with Soviet Russia.
If you want trade with Soviet Russia, it is not necessary for the British taxpayer to provide a penny-piece of his hard-earned money, and I would remind hon. Members who may treat this matter lightly that we have not got this money. This £26,000,000 is to be lent to traders, and we shall have to borrow it at 6 per cent., but my hon. Friend has not told us what percentage the traders are to pay for it. If we want trade with South-East Russia, what we want to do is to make peace with South-East Russia, to make it quite clear that our cruisers in the Black Sea are not going to hold up or search ships going to and from Odessa and other ports in South-East Russia, and we have to make it clear that Russian men-of-war manned by partisans of General Denikin, unattached officers and crews, are not going also to interfere. I happen to know a little about this subject. The constituency I represent used to do a very considerable and lucrative trade with Russia, and the average merchant in my constituency, whatever his political colours, wants to see that trade re-established. We have got to guarantee that our men-of-war will not hamper, annoy, hinder, or arrest our merchant ships who are trading with Southern Russia, and that the partisan war ships, the Corsairs, who owe allegiance to General Denikin, do not also interfere.
The people of Russia, we all know, are longing for the articles of common use with which we can well supply them, and they have certain raw materials which eventually they will be able to supply to us in exchange. But to do that you do not want to vote £26,000,000, which we are asked to vote with very little explanation from the hon. Gentleman. The original scheme, I understand, was to subsidise merchants who wished to trade with Northern Russia, the Baltic provinces, and Poland. The same thing applies. Trade will flow again when we
cease stirring up civil war and civil strife in those countries as we have been doing. At the present moment Poland, a rich country with great potentialities, is of no use as a market to the British merchant for either buying or selling. There is nothing doing, for the simple reason that we are egging the Poles on to keep up a great army and to indulge in aggressive tactics. That sort of thing could be stopped in an hour. [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman please address the Chair?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise. I meant no discourtesy to you. This general unrest and aggressive action on the part of Poland could be stopped in an hour by a word from the Supreme Council, and the Supreme Council should take that step. They ought not to come to us, representing the British side of the Supreme Council, nor ought the hon. Member to offer the few words of inadequate explanation that he has done in the unexplained absence of the President of the Board of Trade, and ask for £26,000,000 to bolster up, to cover up, and to camouflage their shocking, miserable blunders in Europe during recent months. The export trade is not on a sound basis. We have temporary markets abroad in South Africa and the Far East that will keep our pantries going for the next few weeks or months, but in time we are bound to feel the loss of the great European markets for our exports and imports, of the rich, industrial, busy countries in Europe that in the past have always bought from us and sold to us; unless they do it again we cannot recover those markets by voting a sum of money such as is now proposed. We cannot lend the money because we have not got it. The way we can do what is desired is to have a sound and peaceful foreign policy. It is no good the Minister for War terming those who disagree with his policy Bolsheviks, as he has called me. That is not argument. I am putting forward an alternative. It is the alternative we are going to carry out when we are in power. It will commend itself to the British people. I wonder at the effrontery—I say this without any disrespect to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury of the Government after 18 months of doing their best to destroy our ancient
markets in Europe, come here and ask, with only a sentence of explanation for this money. They ask us to vote this money—it is a noxious drug—to keep the machinery of trade going after their class failures. I shall certainly vote against it, and I hope I shall be supported by those who have kept their heads during the last 18 months. The Government's great failure has been in their European policy. This is to be a plaster to cover up festering sores, to bolster up the export trade. But we shall never get the export trade on a satisfactory basis until we get peace, and we will never get peace until the Government's policy is peaceful. I hope that this matter will be brought forward again later with a proper explanation by the President of the Board of Trade, supported, if necessary, by the Leader of the House, and the Prime Minister. This is not the time to ask us to vote this sum of money. The action is unprecedented. I regret that the Government have seen their way, at this junction, to offer this affront to the House of Commons.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I join the hon. and gallant Member in opposing the Vote and the passing of this Resolution at this time of night, and following the short and by no means informative explanation of the Financial Secretary, and seeing this is an attempt to subsidise the export trade and to guarantee in at least one part of Europe that the private traders of this country who seek to ply their trade there shall do so. We know perfectly well from recent statements that there is absolutely no occasion to guarantee, by means of a subsidy or an advance, any trader who desires to trade in Russia to-day. The Soviet Republic of Russia has made this Government, the Government of France, and all the Allies several very decent offers of peace. One at least has been submitted within the past three days to the French Government, carrying with it their promise to pay not only the interest upon the capital presently to be invested in Russia, but also the interest upon all the loans to the old Government under the Czar's régime. This shows their desire to enter into commercial relations with the outside world. Some nights ago we had a speech from the Prime Minister pointing out the wonderful resources of Russia and the wonderful demands that Russia can make for trade with this country. They want railways,
locomotives, and goods of every description that we can manufacture and have manufactured and exported abroad in the past. They want all these things in order to restore their country as a productive part of the world. They are not allowed to develop their country owing to the attitude taken up by the Allies, and I consider it is going behind the feeling of the country to ask us to vote £26,000,000, which the Finanical Secretary to the Treasury has told us the banks cannot advance, and which the Government must advance. Where are the Government going to get this money? They must get it from the banks. They are asking the banks to advance the money to them, and they will pay the interest to the banks from the interest which they in turn receive from those to whom they advance it.
I suggest, if the Government have £26,000,000 to spare, that they can spend it very easily upon very many desired reforms in this country There, are a thousand and one things to be done to bring back this country to its pre-War prosperity, and, if the Government have the money to spare, they should develop this country and not advance it to individuals who are going into these foreign countries risking, not their capital, but our capital. It is possible that they may not be able to repay the money, and consequently we must have some form of insurance in order to recoup ourselves from possible losses through any trouble that may break out in South-East Russia or in any other portion of the world in which they invest any part of this £26,000,000. I suggest that this Resolution be withdrawn, and that the Government do not press it until we get a much more extended explanation of the real intentions that underlie the voting of this £26,000,000. We want to know the purposes for which the whole of this money is required, and it should not be voted merely on the unsatisfactory statement made by the Financial Secretary. In a speech of five minutes or less the Financial Secretary gave us the reasons for carrying this Resolution, but that is not the way financial business used to be conducted here. Far more satisfactory explanations have been given in the past, and money was not voted away in this reckless fashion. Such proposals have always been suitably explained to the House, but I expect that those who now
occupy the Treasury Bench will rely upon their majority to crowd into the Lobby to vote away, without any knowledge of this subject, £26,000,000, which must be backed up, not by the banks, but by that which governs even the credit upon which they rely, namely, the productive energy of the working men and women of this country. I suggest that the Government should withdraw this Resolution and not press it forward at this time of the evening.

Mr. BILLING: While opposing this Resolution, I take a rather different point of view from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The question, so far as I see it, is that the Government come down to the House late and ask us to vote £26,000,000 without giving the details for which the Committee have a right to ask, as to what they propose to do with this money. I do not take the view that it is unsound to finance overseas trade, because I think that policy is perfectly sound. I gather from the hon. Member's remarks that he considers it is sound to expend one's capital, but not to invest it. I submit that this £26,000,000 is going to be invested in overseas trade to enhance the commercial stability of this country generally, and that principle is sound. The ambassadors of the commerce of this country are going to be given this sum to develop trade throughout the world, but I think this House has a right to have a few more particulars as to how this money is to be expended, to whom it is to be given, and under what conditions it is to be given. Is it to be given to all applicants, or, if not, are certain favoured firms to be subsidised? If they are to be subsidised, then what particular type of commerce is to receive the subsidy? The Government have not only been subsidising, but they have been actually participating with share and debenture holders in various commercial undertakings in this country. It is perhaps natural for a Government which enjoys such a lobby as this has. I do not know if I am well advised in saying it enjoys the lobby, because confidence in such an overwhelming majority often tends to the downfall of a Government more than anything else, because it gets over-confident, and these things destroy the confidence of the country in it. After all, that often is the crucial test of all its administrative power. There is that tendency to treat this House, especially when
it is in Committee—I am afraid I am disturbing a number of conversations, and I hope I am not imposing any discomfort on those hon. Members—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will speak to the Resolution.

Mr. BILLING: I will try to apply myself as carefully as I can to the Resolution. This is a proposal to Vote £26,000,000 in a blind-alley Vote to the Government to administer in any way they see fit for oversea commerce. There may be a difference of opinion as to what industry it is advisable to develop or subsidise. I suggest that the Government must not take it for granted, because they have the support of a substantial majority in the Lobby, that therefore hon. Members do not appreciate their responsibility to watch the general interests not only of their constituents, but also of the country. That is why I am opposing this Resolution. Not that I do not wish to see the Government get this £26,000,000, provided I am satisfied that they intend to use it for the general welfare of overseas trade. Surely, if we as an island are going to be content with undertaking each other's washing as a means of commercial prosperity, it will not be long before we run a very poor second to Portugal. We are two rather insignificant islands on the Western Coast of Europe, and it is only by the development of our overseas trade and commerce that we can possibly hope to exist as a nation. If the hon. Member suggests that the capital of the country should be expended in developing its comforts and amenities without regard to the development of its overseas commerce that is, I suggest, taking a somewhat narrow point of view. It is not right for the Government to say, "We want £26,000,000. We have only to put the whips on, and the sooner you dry up the sooner you will go home." That is not governing in a constitutional way—

Mr. BALDWIN: If I may venture to intervene I will put the suggestion that we are very anxious to get the financial resolution on the Insurance Bill tonight, and if the Committee will give us that before 11 o'clock we shall be very glad to withdraw this. We regard the National Health Insurance Resolution as one of considerable
urgency. There is not so much urgency attaching to this Resolution now before the Committee.

Mr. BILLING: As my sympathies are wholeheartedly with the Insurance Bill, and not so wholeheartedly with this one, may I be allowed, under the promise given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to resume my seat and allow the other business to proceed.

Mr. ADAMSON: We are quite willing to fall in with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (EXPENSES).

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to National Health Insurance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of the additional expenses incurred by any Government department:—

(a) in making grants equal to two-ninths of the funds required for providing benefits and for defraying expenses of administration, so however that the rate of sickness benefit shall not exceed fifteen shillings a week for men or twelve shillings a week for women, the rate of disablement benefit shall not exceed seven shillings and six pence a week, and maternity benefit shall not exceed forty shillings;
(b) in increasing from eight shillings to ten shillings the rate on which is calculated the maximum amount which may be charged on the Women's Equalisation Fund;
(c) in increasing the weekly sums to be paid to insurance funds in respect of members of the Navy, Army, and Air Force."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): This matter has been before the House on two occasions, and the White Paper which has been circulated fully sets out all the matters mentioned in the Resolution and the financial considera-
tions involved. The Treasury contribution of two-ninths represents an expenditure of £1,772,000. The other items are small, the largest being C, which, I think, will be generally welcomed. The men of the Army and Navy and other Forces have had 1½d. per week deducted from their pay as their share of the contribution. It is proposed now that that shall be made good by the Exchequer and shall not be deducted from their pay. That represents an additional charge of about £290,000 a year. Then there is a small item which is estimated to cost £1,000 in respect of the penny grant towards low-wage earners. I am glad to say that the number of persons who come within that category is diminishing.

Major BARNES: I should like to point out that this Resolution commits us to the principle of differentiation between men and women as regards benefits. While we shall not oppose the passing of this Resolution, we shall probably ask for it to be recommitted in order that men and women can have equal benefits under the Bill.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

RIOT (DUBLIN).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the Government give us any other information about events in Dublin within the last 24 hours? It has disturbed the minds of a good many people in the country and certainly in the House.

Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am sorry to say I have no further information beyond that which was given this afternoon.

Captain W. BENN: Is it intended to take any of these matters which have been postponed to-day till to-morrow after the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Lord E. TALBOT: We cannot without suspending the 11 o'clock Rule.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I beg to give notice to the Noble Lord that I will raise at Question time to-morrow the events in Dublin to which allusion has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend. I quite understand that the Noble Lord has no further information now and I hope he will have information by to-morrow.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes before Eleven of the Clock.